WASHINGTON—The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has approved the proposed $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) by Paramount Skydance, saying “the impact of the transaction will be to increase competition across the media and entertainment ecosystem, with benefits for American consumers and workers.”

The deal still faces possible opposition from the European Union, which has not yet concluded its investigation, from state Attorneys General. California Attorney General Rob Bonta is still reviewing the deal and could still file a lawsuit to block it, as state AGs did in the case of the Nexstar/Tegna deal, which also passed reviews by the DoJ and the Federal Communications Commission.

After an eight month investigation that involved reviewing more than 2 million documents, the Antitrust Division issued a statement late Friday June 12 noting that “based on the evidence received in its investigation that the transaction is not likely to result in harm to competition or American consumers, including with respect to: (1) streaming video on demand (SVOD); (2) linear television; and (3) studio development, production, or distribution of films for theatrical release.”

In terms of the streaming marketplace, the Division reported that the “evidence reviewed and carefully analyzed by the Division indicates that, post-merger, competition in SVOD is not likely to be harmed. To the contrary, the combined firm is likely to increase competition by offering consumers a more robust competitive alternative to the larger SVOD offerings.”

One of the more controversial aspects of the merger was its potential impact on Hollywood production and employment. “The substantial body of evidence available to the Division indicates that the transaction is not likely to harm competition in studio development, production, or distribution of films for theatrical release,” the DoJ argued in a statement. “Instead, the evidence shows extensive competition within the industry, which has generated greater output and diversity of film offerings, and is likely to continue unabated. In fact, even since the transaction was announced, the evidence shows competition for theatrical production and distribution has increased. Smaller studios have turned to innovative content development and distribution strategies to challenge traditional assumptions regarding the conditions necessary for successful theatrical release. Indeed, this remains true looking even at narrow categories like “tentpole” or `blockbuster’ theatrical production and distribution.”

The full statement is available here.

Imagine a world where every professional sporting event every Sunday kickoff, every playoff run, every championship moment is locked behind a streaming paywall.

That world is no longer hypothetical. It is arriving, quietly but steadily, reshaping how Americans experience one of the few remaining shared cultural institutions.

But before we accept this shift as inevitable, it is worth asking a more fundamental question: Who built the pipeline that created these athletes in the first place?

The overwhelming majority of professional athletes whether in the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, or beyond began their journeys in the American public system. They trained on taxpayer-funded fields, learned discipline and teamwork in public schools, and, in many cases, developed their skills at publicly supported colleges and universities.

This is not incidental. It is foundational.

Open Your Wallets, Again
The American public did not merely consume sports it helped create the conditions that made modern professional sports possible. From infrastructure to education, from coaching to competition, the early stages of athletic development have long been supported, directly or indirectly, by taxpayers.

And now, at the highest level, the public is being asked to pay again. Not once, but repeatedly.

To follow a full season today, fans are often required to navigate a fragmented landscape of access: traditional cable, multiple streaming platforms, exclusive game packages, and premium add-ons. In some cases, the total cost approaches or exceeds $1,000 annually just to watch games that were once readily available on free, local television.

This is not simply a matter of convenience. It is a question of access and, ultimately, fairness. Because what we are witnessing is not just a technological evolution. It is a structural shift in who gets to participate in the experience of sports.

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 was enacted in a very different era, one in which broad public access was a central expectation. The law granted leagues the ability to collectively negotiate television rights an exception to traditional antitrust rules precisely because those rights would still serve the public interest by keeping games widely available.

That balance is now under strain.

Last week the U.S. Department of Justice opened an inquiry into whether the NFL’s business practices may be crossing a line leveraging its unique structure and protections in ways that could limit competition and disadvantage consumers.

At the center of this inquiry is a simple but consequential concern: when a league has the power to bundle rights, divide them across platforms, and effectively dictate how fans access games, does that begin to resemble market control rather than market competition?

Critics argue that it does.

They point to a system in which access is no longer unified but splintered, where consumers must chase games across platforms, and where the cumulative cost of participation continues to rise. They argue that the combination of antitrust protection and modern media strategy has created an environment where the league can maximize revenue without sufficient regard for accessibility.

Has the Balance Shifted Too Far?
To be clear, professional sports leagues are not charities. They are businesses, and they have every right to innovate, to grow, and to pursue revenue in a changing media environment.

Streaming is not the problem. Innovation is not the problem. Even profit, in itself, is not the problem. The concern arises when the balance shifts too far when the public, having already invested in the foundation, finds itself priced out of the result.

Sports have long held a unique place in American life. They are not merely entertainment. They are a shared experience that binds communities, bridges divides, and creates common ground in an increasingly fragmented society.

For generations, families gathered around televisions to watch games that were accessible to all, regardless of income or geography. Those moments were not just about competition; they were about connection.

When access becomes conditional, when it depends on the number of subscriptions one can afford, that shared experience begins to erode.

This is the broader implication that policymakers and regulators must now consider.

The question is not whether leagues like the NFL should evolve. They must. The question is whether they can do so while still honoring the public compact that helped build them.

That compact is not written in statute alone. It is rooted in a simple principle: that something built, in part, by the public should remain meaningfully accessible to the public.

As the DOJ review unfolds, it presents an opportunity not just to examine legal frameworks, but to reconsider the balance between private enterprise and public interest.

Because if the future of sports is one where full participation is reserved for those who can navigate and afford a complex web of subscriptions, then we have not merely changed how games are delivered.

We have changed who they are for.

And that is a cost far greater than any monthly fee.

NEW YORK—The Justice Department and 17 state attorneys general have filed filed briefs in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opposing an appeal by the backers of Venu Sports that would lift an injunction against the launch of the sports streaming service.

In August, U.S. District Court Judge Margaret Garnett in Manhattan issued a preliminary injunction in Fubo’s antitrust lawsuit against Venu, a sports-centric multichannel video programming distributor backed by The Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery that blocked it from launching.

Venu’s owners, who had hoped to launch near the start of the NFL season, appealed the decision, which would block operations until the case goes to trial in October of 2025.

The DOJ’s brief against the appeal and in support of the preliminary injunctions called the arguments by the owners of Venu to lift the appeal “a red herring” and “likely misplaced.”

“First, they [Venu] argue the district court improperly ‘grounded its analysis in bundling practices’ predating Venu rather than focusing on the competitive effects of the transaction itself,“ the Justice Department argued. “Second, they contend that “provid[ing] consumers an additional option at a lower price is unambiguously a pro-consumer outcome that cannot violate the Clayton Act. Both critiques are wrong.’ ” (The Clayton Act is a 1914 law passed to curb antitrust practices.)

“This court should hold that Fubo established a likelihood of success on the merits” in its claims against Venu, the DoJ concluded.

In a note to investors, Lightshed Partners analyst Richard Greenfield wrote that the filings reduced the odds that the injunction against the service would be lifted quickly.

“While it is unclear how new DoJ leadership in 2025 will view Venu, the odds of the injunction being lifted ahead of the District Court trial appear to be falling,” he noted. “It will also be interesting to see if this leads to greater questions around bundling practices more generally.”

The attorneys general brief was filed by state AGs in New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

Their brief defended the injunction by arguing that “defendants’ joint venture violates § 7 of the Clayton Act” as it “substantially lessens competition in the relevant market.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S. Department of Justice and the Attorneys Generals of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia, have filed a civil antitrust suit against Google accusing the tech giant of monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the complaint alleges that Google monopolizes key digital advertising technologies that website publishers depend on to sell ads and that advertisers rely on to buy ads and reach potential customers. 

If successful, the complaint could have an important impact on the rapidly growing digital advertising business local broadcasters and media companies are trying to build. 

“For years, broadcasters have been sounding the alarm over the anti-competitive practices of the Big Tech platforms, including Google," an NAB spokesperson said in response to the suit. "Their dominant role in the marketplace has come at a steep price for local news broadcasters, who lose an estimated $2 billion annually by providing their content to these platforms under ‘take it or leave it’ terms. We continue to work with our congressional allies to address these inequities and urge Congress to move swiftly to level the playing field.”

As a result of its illegal monopoly, the Department of Justice (DoJ) claims that Google pockets on average more than 30% of the advertising dollars that flow through its digital advertising technology products; for some transactions and for certain publishers and advertisers, it takes far more.

The complaint alleges that over the past 15 years, Google has engaged in a course of anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct that consisted of neutralizing or eliminating ad tech competitors through acquisitions; wielding its dominance across digital advertising markets to force more publishers and advertisers to use its products; and thwarting the ability to use competing products. In doing so, Google cemented its dominance in tools relied on by website publishers and online advertisers, as well as the digital advertising exchange that runs ad auctions, the DoJ said. 

“Today’s complaint alleges that Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful conduct to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “No matter the industry and no matter the company, the Justice Department will vigorously enforce our antitrust laws to protect consumers, safeguard competition, and ensure economic fairness and opportunity for all.”

As a result of the alleged anti-trust violations, the DoJ noted that Google now controls the digital tool that nearly every major website publisher uses to sell ads on their websites (publisher ad server); it controls the dominant advertiser tool that helps millions of large and small advertisers buy ad inventory (advertiser ad network); and it controls the largest advertising exchange (ad exchange), a technology that runs real-time auctions to match buyers and sellers of online advertising.

In response to the lawsuit, Google told CNN said the DOJ suit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.”

“DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow,” a Google spokesperson told CNN. 

CNN also reported that a federal judge last year knocked down a claim that Google colluded with Facebook in a separate antitrust suit led by the state of Texas. That judge also ruled, however, that a number of monopolization claims in the Texas case could move forward.

More specifically the new anti-trust lawsuit accused Google of these anticompetitive activities: 

• Acquiring Competitors: Engaging in a pattern of acquisitions to obtain control over key digital advertising tools used by website publishers to sell advertising space;
• Forcing Adoption of Google’s Tools: Locking in website publishers to its newly-acquired tools by restricting its unique, must-have advertiser demand to its ad exchange, and in turn, conditioning effective real-time access to its ad exchange on the use of its publisher ad server;
• Distorting Auction Competition: Limiting real-time bidding on publisher inventory to its ad exchange, and impeding rival ad exchanges’ ability to compete on the same terms as Google’s ad exchange; and
• Auction Manipulation: Manipulating auction mechanics across several of its products to insulate Google from competition, deprive rivals of scale, and halt the rise of rival technologies.
• As a result of its illegal monopoly, and by its own estimates, Google pockets on average more than 30% of the advertising dollars that flow through its digital advertising technology products; for some transactions and for certain publishers and advertisers, it takes far more. Google’s anticompetitive conduct has suppressed alternative technologies, hindering their adoption by publishers, advertisers, and rivals, the DoJ said. 

To redress Google’s anticompetitive conduct, the Department seeks both equitable relief on behalf of the American public as well as treble damages for losses sustained by federal government agencies that overpaid for web display advertising. This enforcement action marks the first monopolization case in approximately half a century in which the Department has sought damages for a civil antitrust violation, the DoJ said. 

In 2020, the Justice Department filed a civil antitrust suit against Google for monopolizing search and search advertising, which are different markets from the digital advertising technology markets at issue in the lawsuit filed today. The Google search litigation is scheduled for trial in September 2023.

 WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Federal Trade Commission has fined Twitter for deceptively using account security data for targeted advertising and for violating a 2011 FTC order that explicitly prohibited the company from misrepresenting its privacy and security practices. Under the proposed order, Twitter must pay a $150 million penalty and is banned from profiting from its deceptively collected data.

The FTC reported that Twitter asked users to give their phone numbers and email addresses to protect their accounts. Then, Twitter profited by allowing advertisers to use this data to target specific users. 

Under the proposed settlement, which must be approved by a federal court, Twitter did not admit wrongdoing but agreed to pay the fine and address a variety of problems with the way they handled user data. 

“As the complaint notes, Twitter obtained data from users on the pretext of harnessing it for security purposes but then ended up also using the data to target users with ads," said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. "This practice affected more than 140 million Twitter users, while boosting Twitter’s primary source of revenue.”

According to a complaint filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, Twitter in 2013 began asking users to provide either a phone number or email address to improve account security. 

From 2014 to 2019, more than 140 million Twitter users provided their phone numbers or email addresses after the company told them this information would help secure their accounts, according to the complaint. 

Twitter, however, failed to mention that it also would be used for targeted advertising, the FTC alleged. Twitter used the phone numbers and email addresses to allow advertisers to target specific ads to specific consumers by matching the information with data they already had or obtained from data brokers, according to the FTC complaint.

Twitter’s deceptive use of users’ phone numbers and email addresses for targeted advertising also violated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield agreements, which required participating companies to follow certain privacy principles in order to legally transfer data from EU countries and Switzerland, the FTC said. 

The Commission alleged that Twitter’s deceptive use of user email addresses and phone numbers violated the FTC Act and the 2011 Commission order, which stemmed from FTC allegations that the company deceived consumers and put their privacy at risk by failing to safeguard their personal information, resulting in two data breaches. The previous order prohibited Twitter from misrepresenting the extent to which the company maintains and protects the security, privacy, confidentiality, or integrity of any nonpublic consumer information, the FTC said. 

“The Department of Justice is committed to protecting the privacy of consumers’ sensitive data,” said Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta. “The $150 million penalty reflects the seriousness of the allegations against Twitter, and the substantial new compliance measures to be imposed as a result of today’s proposed settlement will help prevent further misleading tactics that threaten users’ privacy.” 

“Consumers who share their private information have a right to know if that information is being used to help advertisers target customers,” said U.S. Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds for the Northern District of California. “Social media companies that are not honest with consumers about how their personal information is being used will be held accountable.”

In addition to the $150 million penalty, other provisions of the proposed order would:

• Prohibit Twitter from profiting from deceptively collected data;
• Allow users to use other multi-factor authentication methods such as mobile authentication apps or security keys that do not require users to provide their telephone numbers;
• Notify users that it misused phone numbers and email addresses collected for account security to also target ads to them and provide information about Twitter’s privacy and security controls;
• Implement and maintain a comprehensive privacy and information security program that requires the company, among other things, to examine and address the potential privacy and security risks of new products;
• Limit employee access to users’ personal data; and
• Notify the FTC if the company experiences a data breach.

The Commission voted 4 to 0 to refer the complaint and stipulated final order to the Department of Justice for filing. 

DOJ filed the complaint and stipulated final order in the District Court of Northern California, San Francisco Division. 

In a statement Damien Kieran, Twitter’s chief privacy officer said that “on May 25, 2022, Twitter reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding a privacy incident disclosed in 2019 when some email addresses and phone numbers provided for account security purposes may have been inadvertently used for advertising. This issue was addressed as of September 17, 2019, and today we want to reiterate the work we’ll continue to do to protect the privacy and security of the people who use Twitter.”

“Keeping data secure and respecting privacy is something we take extremely seriously, and we have cooperated with the FTC every step of the way,” he continued. “In reaching this settlement, we have paid a $150M USD penalty, and we have aligned with the agency on operational updates and program enhancements to ensure that people’s personal data remains secure and their privacy protected.”

Elon Musk, who has proposed acquiring Twitter has not as yet responded to the complaint and the proposed settlement. 

WASHINGTON—The Nexstar-Tribune merger is one step closer to completion following a green light signal from the Justice Department that it would approve the proposed $6.4 billion merger following the companies divestiture of a number of TV stations.

The Justice Department provided its conditional approval in a pair of documents—one a civil antitrust suit against the deal in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, and the other a settlement between the three parties that if approved by the court would resolve the complaints alleged in the suit by the divestiture of the TV stations and related conditions.

DOJ argued that without the proposed divestitures, head-to-head competition in 13 television markets would be eliminated, allowing the combined Nexstar-Tribune to unfairly charge higher retransmission fees that could result in higher monthly bills for consumers, as well as higher prices for spot advertisements.

“Without the required divestitures, Nexstar’s merger with Tribune threatens significant competitive harm to cable and satellite TV subscribers and small businesses,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim from the DOJ’s Antitrust Division. “I am pleased, however, that we have been able to reach a resolution of the Division’s concerns, thanks in part to the parties’ commitment to engage in good faith settlement talks from the outset of our investigation.”

As a result of the settlement, Nexstar and Tribune will be required to sell one or more stations currently owned by the companies in each of the 13 markets: Davenport, Iowa; Des Moines, Iowa; Ft. Smith, Ark.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Harrisburg, Penn.; Hartford, Conn.; Huntsville, Ala.; Indianapolis; Memphis; Norfolk, Va.; Richmond, Va.; Salt Lake City; and Wilkes-Barre, Penn.

This settlement also resolves challenges raised by attorney generals in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Should the merger of Nexstar and Tribune be made official, Nexstar would become the largest broadcast group in the U.S.

The FCC must still complete its public interest review of the merger, which deals with more than antitrust issues.

WASHINGTON—As expected, Gray Television has now received both FCC and Department of Justice approvals for its $3.6 billion acquisition of Raycom Media.

The FCC helped pave the way this week by dismissing a license challenge to Raycom stations in Honolulu, announcing its approval of the deal late Thursday.

The Media Bureau did not find MVPD objections to some of the station combos and the impact of the deal on retransmission consent negotiations persuasive, and said that the establishment of statewide news bureaus and Raycom stations' access to Gray's Washington, D.C., bureau as reasons the merger would be in the public interest.

The American Cable Association had wanted the FCC to condition the deal on Gray not being able to use after-acquired clauses to raise retrans fees at the stations it is spinning off before it divests them to a third party. The FCC said that since Gray told the commission it would not, that was good enough since Gray is "bound by the Commission's rules and character policy to deal truthfully with the Commission."

The FCC will allow Gray to retain two of the top four stations in Honolulu and Amarillo. In the case of Amarillo, the FCC said it is because one of the stations is usually not in the top four, but was in the last Nielsen book due to an anomalous circumstance. In the case of Honolulu, Raycom argued that Raycom has ramped-up news there, which using the Gray Washington bureau would bolster. The FCC agreed that breaking up the Raycom duopoly would cause more harm than good.

Under a recent reg change, while owning two of the top four stations in a market is still preemptively against FCC local ownership rules, it is a rebuttable presumption, which Gray has successfully rebutted in the case of Honolulu and Amarillo. NCTA-the Internet & Television Association had argued against allowing those combos.

But while there were calls for conditions and concerns expressed by cable and satellite operators, there were not petitions to deny the deal .

Gray says the plan is to close the deal by Jan. 1.

DOJ's approval of the deal last week pointed to its requirement that Gray spin off a bunch of stations, giving the suggestion it was a condition it had extracted, though giving Gray props for cooperating.

But Gray points out in its announcement of the dual DOJ/FCC approvals and closing date, that those stations were the same ones it identified back in June as necessary to comply with FCC duopoly rules and were already part of the deal as structured. "The regulatory consents include no unexpected or unusual terms and conditions," it pointed out.

The company will reach a combined 24% of the country, and Raycom will spin off over 100 local newspapers and the digital ad platform PureCars. But Gray will also be getting Raycom Sports; RTM Productions, an automotive media compan; and Broadview Media, a post-production and signage house.

Gray is divesting Raycom stations WTNZ Knoxville (Fox), WTOL Toledo (CBS), KXXV Waco (ABC), WTXL Tallahassee (ABC), WFXG Augusta(Fox), KWES Odessa (NBC), WGPX Panama City (Fox), WDFX Dothan (Fox), and Gray's WSWG Albany (CBS).

"The American Cable Association applauds the Federal Communications Commission for requiring Gray and Raycom to divest nine television stations in 'duopoly markets' as a condition of their merger," the cable trade said. "ACA is also pleased that, in approving the transaction, the FCC helped avoid the triggering of Gray’s 'after-acquired station' clauses with respect to Raycom stations to be divested."

The American Cable Association has called on the Justice Department to open an antitrust investigation into Comcast-NBCUniversal. It would be a way to keep Justice overseeing the company after the conditions it imposed on the merger expired earlier this year. ACA is saying the government still needs a leash on the company, rather than unleash. The ACA said the problems Justice saw in 2011 when it imposed the conditions are still problems.

Comcast-NBCU said the ACA's call is meritless and "constitutes an inappropriate attempt to gain leverage in the commercial marketplace."

But President Donald Trump, who is no fan of NBC News or most big media companies with news operations that have reported critically on him, took note of the ACA letter in a tweet:

ACA was not complaining about the additional spotlight, thanking the President for his input. A spokesman for the group said they did not know how the President became aware of the letter, though his tweet came after it was reported by Multichannel News and others.

ACA wanted Justice to extend the conditions, but that didn't happen, though antitrust chief Makan Delrahim has signaled that one of the reasons he favors spin-offs over behavioral conditions like those put on the merger is that it is hard to enforce them. He also said Justice would keep an eye on the company now that the conditions have sunsetted. But ACA suggests it needs to do more than monitor to keep the company in line, plus monitoring alone may not be enough to protect the rivals who have information about the company's business practices that they want to share.

ACA also asked the FCC to toughen its program access rules given that the conditions were going away, but the FCC has not done so.

ACA has long complained that large program suppliers force bundled carriage and impose unfair terms due to their size and market power on the smaller entities it represents.

"By opening a formal investigation, the DOJ will demonstrate seriousness of purpose and give it the ability to collect sufficient information to determine whether Comcast-NBC is acting anticompetitively," ACA said.

ACA's letter seeking the investigation was addressed to Delrahim and offered ACA's cooperation, including providing some info on Comcast-NBCU's business practices. ACA has long said the merged company has the incentive and opportunity, and willingness, to inflict anticompetitive harms given its size relative to the smaller cable and broadband operators ACA represents.

"NBCU has shown a willingness to harm rivals, even while being subject to the 2011 DOJ and FCC conditions," said ACA President Matt Polka. "In light of these concerns, which also have been expressed by members of Congress and a diverse array of stakeholders, the Antitrust Division should immediately open an investigation into the firm’s behavior."

In 2011, the DOJ and FCC recognized that the combination of programming and distribution assets within Comcast-NBCU created such serious competitive problems that the transaction could only be approved with robust remedies. Since that time, as demonstrated herein, Comcast-NBCU’s dominant position in the market has not lessened, and in fact, it is even greater-and the 2011 remedies are no longer in effect. As a result, Comcast-NBCU is unleashed, and consumer and rivals are bound to suffer harm."

"The video programming and distribution markets are incredibly competitive," Comcast countered in a statement. "New programmers and distribution platforms are offering consumers increasing choices on what and where to watch. At Comcast NBCUniversal, we are competing in this dynamic environment the way we always have – by continuing to innovate and conducting our business in compliance with antitrust laws and other legal requirements. Among other things, Comcast Cable has brought Netflix and YouTube to our X1 platform. And NBCUniversal has provided content to Hulu, Netflix, and hundreds of other traditional and over-the-top providers."

One of Delrahim's big issues with the AT&T-Time Warner deal, which Justice sued to block because AT&T would not agree to spin-offs rather than behavioral conditions, is that he saw it as incentive and opportunity for that merged company to disadvantage over-the-top rivals by limiting their access to either the company's programming or distribution network.

Editor's note: The following editorial was written prior to last week's news of the collapse of the Sinclair Tribune merger. 

Does the television broadcasting industry need further consolidation in order for Next Gen TV to succeed?

That was one of the main arguments put forth by Sinclair in its efforts to acquire Tribune when it announced its deal last year. “The acquisition will enable Sinclair to build ATSC 3.0 advanced services, scale emerging networks and national sales and integrate content verticals,” said Chris Ripley, Sinclair president/CEO at the time.

The $3.9 billion deal would have added 42 stations to Sinclair’s current stable of 193 stations. Even after selling off a number of stations to comply with federal rules, the combined group would control 215 stations reaching 62 percent of U.S. households in 102 television markets.

Last month, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who originally supported the proposed deal, did an about face, expressing doubts about the acquisition after reviewing station transactions—in particular, two stations in Texas and WGN-TV in Chicago, characterizing them as “sham” transactions.

Later, the commission released a hearing designation order that provided more details about their concerns, saying it had “significant questions” about the divestitures.

“We are unable to find upon the record before us, that grant of the applications would be consistent with the public interest,” the commission said, adding that the facts in the order “raise questions about whether Sinclair was the real party in interest under Commission rules and precedents and attempted to skirt the commission’s broadcast ownership rules.”

Sinclair denies any wrongdoing and says it has been straightforward with the commission. Nevertheless, the company said it would be “greatly disappointed if the transaction cannot be completed.”

The FCC’s actions has prompted the Department of Justice to examine the process of TV ad sales and whether broadcasters have conspired to artificially inflate ad pricing. Several class action suits have been filed against Sinclair, Tribune and several other station groups.

The furor that has erupted over this issue illustrates the dilemma broadcasters face in today’s media market. Facing increasing pressure from Silicon Valley over digital advertising platforms based on personal data that can target individual consumers down to their shoe sizes, the broadcast industry is responding by touting the advantages of Next Gen TV, which, because of its IP-based two-way data capabilities, will be able to better compete with the Googles and Amazons of the world in targeted advertising.

“The biggest continual decline in our business is ad revenues,” Mark Aitken, vice president of advanced technology for Sinclair told the Wall Street Journal last year, adding that deployment of the new standard could stop and ultimately reverse that “draining process.”

Now that the merger is in serious doubt, do we need to be concerned over how it will affect the transition to ATSC 3.0? The transition to ATSC 1.0 was a government-mandated transition, with built-in incentives to ensure consumers would continue to receive over-the-air broadcasts. The transition to ATSC 3.0 has no such protections—it is a market-driven, voluntary deployment that will also require cooperation among competitors to transition away from 1.0. Sinclair is not the only station group that has promoted the advantages of consolidation in order to finance the deployment and advantages of ATSC 3.0.

But the benefits far outweigh the burdens of deployment, which could cost as little as $100,000 for a small independent station to as much as $1 million for a facility shared by several. It will enable broadcasters to improve their competitiveness in the digital media marketplace and better serve their local communities. And let’s not forget perhaps the most important incentive of all: When it comes to spectrum, the FCC is effectively telling broadcasters: “Use it or lose it.” The commission has made it clear that our industry will need to make optimum use of our remaining spectrum and to that point, ATSC 3.0 is the end game.

Deal or no deal, I believe Sinclair will continue to work towards deploying the standard. I don’t doubt their offer to “put millions of chips into the hands of suitable device manufacturers free of cost,” still stands. The company holds numerous patents on the standard that will still enhance their bottom line if and when widely deployed. And let’s not forget the importance of alliances such as Pearl TV that continue to test and commence building out facilities to launch Next Gen TV.

The business advantages for ATSC 3.0 extend beyond just the consumer market. Sinclair, in particular has touted the standard’s datagathering advantages for business-to-business and related enterprises.

In short, we are just beginning to touch the surface of Next Gen TV’s vast opportunities and its success is not dependent on any one company. The potential collapse of the Sinclair Tribune merger could make it more difficult to reach critical mass, however it won’t stop the train.

WASHINGTON--The Department of Justice on Wednesday cleared the way for Disney to acquire the assets of 21 Century Fox pending the sale of Fox’s regional sports networks.

The announcement by the DOJ’s antitrust division gives Disney a leg up over Comcast, which is also attempting to purchase the assets, which include the Twentieth Century Fox studio. The two companies have made several proposals that has driven the value of the transaction from $52.4 billion to $71.3 billion as of last week. Comcast is attempting to partner with other companies or private equity investors to raise additional cash for the deal, which could reach up to $90 billion, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal today.

To meet the DOJ’s final approval, Disney will have to divest 22 regional sports networks, responding to critics’ fears that a combined Disney-Fox company would result in higher prices for cable sports programming. The department has given Disney 90 days to divest the RSNs following closure of the deal.

“American consumers have benefitted from head-to-head competition between Disney and Fox’s cable sports programming that ultimately has prevented cable television subscription prices from rising even higher,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Today’s settlement will ensure that sports programming competition is preserved in the local markets where Disney and Fox compete for cable and satellite distribution.”

Matthew Polka, president and CEO of the American Cable Association applauded the decision and urged Comcast to drop its bid.

"DOJ's action should convince Comcast to abandon its own pursuit of the Fox programming assets,” Polka said. "It already has too much market power by virtue of being both the nation's largest cable operator and a significant owner of national, regional and local programming. And its ability to harm rivals has only increased with the recent expiration of FCC conditions that were put in place in 2011 to address this concern. Comcast's acquisition of even more programming is a bridge too far for competition and consumers."

The deal is also subject to other regulatory approvals outside of the U.S. as well as shareholder approval.