FTC Should Continue Investigation into NewsGuard’s Disinformation Rating Practices

Federal regulators face lawsuit from NewsGuard amid antitrust investigation

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson finds himself at the center of a legal battle with NewsGuard, a company that rates news outlets for accuracy, as part of a broader effort to address potential anti-competitive practices in digital media.

The FTC recently launched an investigation into NewsGuard in connection with the proposed $25 billion merger between advertising giants Interpublic and Omnicom. The probe specifically examines how news rating services might influence advertising spending across media outlets with different political perspectives.

Industry analysts note that the investigation reflects the current administration’s heightened scrutiny of mechanisms that could potentially steer advertising dollars based on content rather than audience reach. According to reporting by Charles Gasparino in late 2024, regulators have expressed concerns about rating systems that may disproportionately benefit “left-leaning news sites and networks.”

NewsGuard, which assigns numerical ratings to news organizations based on what it describes as journalistic standards, has defended its practices. The company has positioned itself as more balanced than the now-defunct Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an industry group that reportedly controlled approximately 90% of global marketing spending before closing following investigations into its influence over online speech.

The ratings system has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. While NewsGuard representatives point to their varied ratings—giving outlets like The New York Post scores around 70 while awarding perfect 100s to The Washington Post and The New York Times—critics question the methodology behind these assessments.

Critics highlight apparent inconsistencies in the ratings system. For instance, NewsGuard’s perfect scores for certain legacy media outlets come despite those publications’ promotion of now-debunked stories, including extensive coverage of allegations about Russian interference that originated from political campaigns. NewsGuard co-founder Steven Brill himself described accurate reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop as a “hoax,” a characterization that was later proven incorrect.

Media observers have noted other controversial ratings decisions, including NewsGuard’s targeting of sponsors behind the Great Barrington Declaration—a statement from medical experts warning about the potential harms of pandemic lockdowns. These decisions have led to accusations that the company favors establishment viewpoints regardless of their accuracy.

The criticism extends beyond conservative circles. Left-leaning independent journalists, including Matt Taibbi and Lee Fang, have voiced concerns about NewsGuard’s approach. Taibbi has criticized the company’s connections with government insiders, while Fang has characterized NewsGuard as exemplifying how self-appointed “disinformation” experts can financially penalize publishers for presenting dissenting perspectives.

NewsGuard’s legal defense against the FTC investigation centers on First Amendment protections, arguing it has the right to rate news outlets according to its own criteria. However, Chairman Ferguson has consistently targeted what he describes as “misinformation censorship,” suggesting that restricting advertising revenue based on subjective “brand safety” concerns could potentially violate antitrust laws.

The case represents a significant test for how regulatory frameworks designed for traditional markets apply to the complex ecosystem of digital media, advertising, and information quality assessment. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how news is monetized and which perspectives receive financial support in the digital marketplace.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the central question remains whether services like NewsGuard represent legitimate quality control mechanisms or, as critics suggest, function as gatekeepers that potentially limit the diversity of viewpoints in public discourse through financial pressure rather than direct censorship.