A coalition of eight attorneys general has filed a lawsuit to block the acquisition of Tegna Inc. by Nexstar Media Group, Inc., alleging that the deal creating a media giant governing 80% of U.S. TV homes would result in higher programming costs for consumers and hurt the quality of local news “with the elimination of independent local news and other content.”

The attorneys general of California, New York, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, North Carolina, Connecticut, and Virginia filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The lawsuit claims that the merger violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which holds that mergers that substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly are illegal. If the Nexstar/Tegna merger is allowed to proceed, the eight attorneys general claim that local markets will immediately see a lessening of competition.

In a statement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is part of the lawsuit said that “Today, my office has filed a lawsuit to block the proposed merger of broadcasting giants Nexstar and Tegna. This merger would cause incredibly high levels of concentration in local TV markets and is expected to raise cable and satellite prices across the country, causing irreparable harm to local news and consumers who rely on their reporting as a critical source of information. If approved, this multibillion-dollar deal would combine the nation’s largest and third-largest television-station conglomerates, creating a behemoth covering 80% of U.S. television households. This merger is illegal, plain and simple, running contrary to federal antitrust laws that protect consumers. When broadcast media is owned by a handful of companies, we get fewer voices, less competition, and communities lose the critical check on power that local journalism delivers.”

The lawsuit also alleges that the deal would create the largest broadcast station group in the United States, putting more broadcast programming in the hands of fewer people, removing control from the communities they report to, cutting local jobs, and significantly impacting the delivery of news and other media content to Americans nationwide.

A major argument in the complaint is that the combined station group would own two or more of the Big Four (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC) stations in many markets. That would give the company more market power to demand higher retransmission consent fees, which in turn would raise the price of pay TV services.

In addition, owning multiple local stations would allow the company to combine news operations in local markets, which would allegedly reduce quality, the diversity of local voices. The complaint cited reports detailing layoff in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.

“Unless enjoined, the merger likely would have the following effects in the market for the Licensing of Big 4 Retransmission Consent across the nation, among others: A). competition in the Licensing of Big 4 Television Retransmission Consent in each of the Big 4 Overlap DMAs likely would be substantially lessened, raising prices and harming quality, such as with the elimination of independent local news and other content; B). competition between Nexstar and Tegna in the Licensing of Big 4 Television Retransmission Consent in each of the Big 4 Overlap DMAs would be eliminated; and C). the fees charged to MVPDs for the…Licensing of Big 4 Television Retransmission Consent in each of the Big 4 Overlap DMAs, as well as in DMAs beyond the Big 4 Overlap DMAs, would increase.”

Nexstar and Tegna have made filings with the FCC that address many of these arguments. They have consistently contended that the merger would strengthen their ability to compete against big tech companies that control much of the video market and would bolster their ability to invest in local news.

As previously reported, both President Trump and FCC Chair have backed the merger.

In response to the lawsuit, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez reiterated her call for this merger review to not be approved under bureaucratic cover but through an open and transparent process that involves a vote of the full Commission with this post on X:

TV Tech has reached out to Nexstar for comment.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here.

Warner Bros. Discovery filed a lawsuit against Gen AI company Midjourney this week, claiming that the company violated the studio’s copyright.

The studio accused Midjourney of operating a subscription-based generative AI service that allows subscribers to create generative AI video using illegal copies of Warner Bros. Discovery copyrighted works without its permission. Warner Bros. Discovery is seeking damages of up to $150,000 “per infringed work.”

“Midjourney thinks it is above the law.” the studio said in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Count Central District of California. “The Service lets subscribers pick iconic Warner Bros. Discovery copyrighted characters and then reproduces, publicly displays and performs, and makes available for download (i.e., distributes) infringing images and videos, and unauthorized derivatives, with every imaginable scene featuring those characters. Without any consent or authorization by Warner Bros. Discovery, Midjourney brazenly dispenses Warner Bros. Discovery’s intellectual property as if it were its own.”

The studio added that Midjourney “could easily stop its theft and exploitation of Warner Bros. Discovery’s intellectual property” and that it “controls the outputs of its image and video Service, and it has the means to implement protection measures to prevent the ongoing reproduction, public display, public performance, and distribution of Warner Bros. Discovery’s works. Midjourney already possesses the technological means and measures that could prevent its distribution, public display, and public performance of infringing images and videos.”

Warner Bros. Discovery said that Midjourney has made “a calculated and profit-driven decision to offer zero protection for copyright owners even though Midjourney knows about the breathtaking scope of its piracy and copyright infringement.”

Recent actions by Midjourney have led the studio to believe that Midjourney knows what it’s doing is illegal, the studio added.

“Midjourney’s recent conduct shows it has actual knowledge that the Service infringes Warner Bros. Discovery’s copyrighted characters and the ability to stop the infringement,” the studio said in its lawsuit. “Upon launching video generation, the Service temporarily refused to ‘animate’ (i.e., generate videos from) many of the infringing images of Warner Bros. Discovery’s characters that Midjourney generated. Midjourney could only do this because it recognizes that its Service’s outputs infringe Warner Bros. Discovery’s copyrights.

“Despite this capability and awareness, within the last couple of weeks, Midjourney deliberately removed these protection measures on video in its Service… It is hard to imagine copyright infringement that is any more willful than what Midjourney is doing here.”

Founded in 2021 by David Holz, Midjourney’s gen AI service earned more than $200 million in revenue in 2023, and reportedly made $300 million in revenue in 2024. As of September 2024, it had nearly 21 million users.

Midjourney first launched its Service in February 2022 as a “bot” accessible within the Discord communication platform. By October 2023, Midjourney was offering its service to consumers via its own website, Midjourney.com. Originally, the website was open only to Midjourney customers who had used Midjourney’s Service via the Discord platform but by August 2024, Midjourney was offering its Service to all subscribers and by April of this year, Midjourney launched version 7 of its image Service.

Midjourney recently launched “Midjourney TV,” a 24/7 video streaming channel that is publicly accessible via midjourney.tv or Midjourney’s official YouTube page.

The lawsuit against Midjourney is similar to one filed by Disney and Universal, in June, seeking similar damages.

Attorneys for President Trump and Paramount are seeking a mediator to resolve Trump’s $20 billion lawsuit against CBS, according to the New York Times.

The Times, citing several sources, said Paramount had no comment but quotes Trump’s lawyer Ed Paltzik, “President Trump will pursue this vital matter to its just and rightful conclusion.”

Trump filed the lawsuit against CBS just prior to the 2024 election, accusing the network of editing an interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris to show bias against him. The lawsuit was amended to add the network’s parent company as a separate defendant.

Brendan Carr, Trump’s new FCC chairman has also accused CBS of “distortion,” and said as early as last November that the lawsuit would be a part of the commission’s review of the merger. The FCC released the full transcript of the interview earlier this month and has asked for public comment.

Attorneys for Trump and Paramount are currently negotiating but CBS staffers are opposed to issuing an apology to Trump, according to the Times.

WASHINGTON D.C.—The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC) and the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB) have filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit requesting the Court stay the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order mandating disclosures for foreign government-sponsored programming pending full judicial review of the order. 

The groups had filed a lawsuit with the court challenging the order in August and in September asked the FCC to delay enforcement of the foreign disclosure rules until the court had ruled. The FCC denied that request on December 8. 

In the recently filed brief to stay the order, the groups asks for a stay pending completion of the judicial review of the order, saying the FCC lacks the authority to impose the investigatory requirements mandated by the order, lacked justification for its rules and failed to address the problems with undisclosed foreign governmental programming on cable systems and the Internet, which is where the issue primarily exists.

The FCC voted in April of 2021 to require broadcasters to disclose leased-time programming that had been supplied by a foreign government. The rule, which was passed unanimously by the FCC, came in the wake of heightened scrutiny around foreign interference in U.S. elections.

The full brief by the NAB and other plaintiffs can be found here.

TEXARKANA, Texas—Netflix and Hulu are behind on their bills, according to a lawsuit filed by the City of New Boston, Texas, on Aug. 11.

The class action lawsuit claims that Netflix and Hulu “should be and are required by law” to pay municipalities statewide a franchise fee of 5% of their gross revenue because they use broadband wireline facilities located partly in public rights-of-way.

According to the City of New Boston, since the streaming giants rely on these facilities to deliver their services, the companies were required to file an application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas for a state-issued certificate of franchise authority (SICFA) prior to providing video streaming services. Per the lawsuit, Netflix and Hulu have failed to apply and obtain a SICFA, and therefore provide their streaming services without authorization.

Had the applications been submitted, the suit says that a SIFCA would have been authorized as long as Netflix and Hulu made quarterly franchise payments to each city where it provides services—which would equate to the aforementioned 5% of gross revenues.

“Plaintiff New Boston, individually, and on behalf of other Texas municipalities, seeks to require Defendants to abide by the Texas Utility Code, and pay what they owe to these municipalities,” the complaint reads.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the City of Creve Couer, Mo., filed a similar lawsuit in 2018 against Netflix, Hulu and other companies. Netflix argued in that case that it is not a video service provider and as result not subject to those rules. The case is still pending.

Neither Netflix nor Hulu has offered a comment regarding this new lawsuit.

The full lawsuit can be found online. 

SAN FRANCISCO—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has joined the defense team for Locast streaming service in the copyright lawsuit being levied by major broadcasters ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC.

The quartet of broadcasters filed suit against Sports Fans Coalition NY Inc., the nonprofit organization that runs Locast, last year. They claim that Locast, which provides free, local over-the-air programming to viewers, is violating the copyright they have for this programming. Locast, however, claims it is covered by an exemption in copyright law that allows nonprofits to retransmit broadcast TV so communities can access local stations offering news, foreign-language programming and local sports because they are noncommercial, using donations to cover its costs.

EFF is now joining the lawsuit as co-counsel for Locast with the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe lawfirm. The EFF says that it has a long history in defending copyright law and that defending the ability to stream local TV broadcasts is part of its goal.

“Broadcast TV is a vital source of local news and cultural programming for millions of people, which matters now more than ever because of COVID-19,” said Mitch Stoltz, EFF senior staff attorney. “But some broadcasters want to use copyright law to control when, where and how people can receive their local TV broadcasts, and force people to buy expensive pay-TV services just to get their local news and sports.”

Locast is currently operating in 17 cities and has more than a million users.

SAN JOSE, Calif.—Netflix is being sued by Broadcom after the manufacturer of semiconductor chips for set-top boxes filed a lawsuit on March 13 in Los Angeles, which was originally reported by Variety. The lawsuit alleges that Netflix has infringed on eight patents that have ultimately contributed to the rise of cord-cutting.

The eight patents Broadcom cited in the lawsuit deal with video playback and data transmission. Broadcom claims that the patents “cover foundational technologies that are essential to various aspects of Netflix’s video streaming service, and the systems that Netflix uses to support this service.”

As a result of Netflix’s use of this technology for streaming, Broadcom also argues that Netflix causes “substantial and irreparable harm” to its ability to sell its semiconductor chips used for set-top boxes because the market for traditional cable services has declined.

Some of the technology used by Netflix, per Broadcom’s suit, includes “the Netflix systems used to ensure effective and reliable delivery of streaming content with minimal interruptions, to ensure the efficient use of Netflix server resources, and to encode Netflix streaming content in a format compatible with a large percentage of the client devices (e.g., computers, smart TVs) used to access the Netflix services.”

According to Variety’s report, Broadcom had previously filed a series of patent suits against manufacturers of Smart TVs in 2017, but were ultimately ruled against in 2018.

The full suit is available online. 

NEW YORK—In its official filing of counterclaims to the lawsuit brought about by broadcasters ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC in July, David R. Goodfriend and Sports Fans Coalition NY Inc.—the stand-ins for the Locast streaming service—make the argument that the plaintiffs have “colluded and misused copyrights” to increase their profits and are now improperly going after a protected non-profit to avoid damage to their bottom line.

Locast, which was founded in January 2018, describes itself as a non-profit service that provides access to local broadcast stations’ content at no charge to its subscribers, citing the 1976 Copyright Act as to why they do not need to pay for the programming. The original lawsuit challenges this claim.

In its counterclaim, Locast alleges that the plaintiff’s claims are “objectively baseless and constitute an unlawful sham.” It says that it fits the description of a non-profit organization protected under section 17 U.S.C. § 111(a)(5) of the Copyright Act; that the claims against Goodfriend are impermissible as her serves SFCNY without compensation; and that the lawsuit is being used as an intimidation factor to shutter the Locast service, as broadcasters waited a year-and-a-half after the services launch to file any claims.

“Plaintiffs have colluded to limit the reasonable public access to the over-the-air signals that they are statutorily required to make available for free, and have opted instead to use their copyright improperly to construct a pay-TV model that forces consumers to forgo over-the-air programming or to pay cable, satellite and online providers for access to programming that was intended to be free,” Locast writes in the filing.

“The pay-TV providers get rich. Plantiffs get rich. The public gets fleeced.”

The counterclaim states that the plaintiffs are essentially confirming this argument in their original lawsuit when they say that Locast “is devaluing their consent rights.”

Locast also describes that the lawsuit has damaged both the reputation for Goodfriend and impacted business dealings and support from potential donors. According to a New York Times report, Locast claims the broadcasters have threatened "business retaliation" against entities that consider working with Locast.

Prior to the lawsuit being filed in July, AT&T had donated $500,000 to Locast and integrated in into DirecTV boxes.

No response has yet been given by the broadcasters to the counterclaims.

Here is the full counterclaim filed in the U.S. District Court—Southern District of New York.

NEW YORK—A class action lawsuit filed late last week alleges AT&T and a group of its senior executives fraudulently inflated subscriber numbers for its DirecTV Now virtual MVPD service in an effort to bolster the company’s case that Time Warner shareholders should accept its acquisition offer.

The suit, filed Sept. 13 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, names AT&T and 18 executives, including retiring AT&T CEO of Communications John Donovan and Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T Inc., as defendants.

The plaintiffs, including union pension funds and individuals, say the executive defendants “were motivated to heavily promote DirecTV Now until the Time Warner Acquisition closed.” Bringing together the telecom giant’s video distribution assets and Time Warner’s content library and production capabilities was promoted as a major reason the deal should go forward.

“The launch of DirecTV Now was an important test of the viability of AT&T’s side of that bargain,” the suit alleges. The new service’s success gave Time Warner shareholders a good reason to trade their stock shares for those of AT&T, it says.

However, the suit alleges DirecTV Now wasn’t “a viable product.” Commercialized before it was ready, DirecTV Now experienced “severe service issues” including “frequent interruptions, service freezing and buffering, app crashes, being automatically logged out, missing features and billing issues,” according to the suit.

The suit alleges AT&T encouraged employees to create fake customer accounts to build the illusion of robust DirecTV Now subscriber growth. The company used “highly discounted promotions” that resulted in high customer churn once promotional pricing ended and promoted “unreasonable and extremely aggressive sales quotas” for employees that pressured them into using “unnatural sales or flat-out fraudulent” sales tactics, according to the suit.

The company “taught and actively encouraged” employees to convert phone upgrade activation fees into subscriptions to the service “by waiving the fee, but charging the customer anyway, and applying the payment to up to three DirecTV Now accounts using fake email addresses without telling the customer they had been signed up for the subscription,” the suit alleges.

Sizable churn began to appear in early 2018, and by the summer of 2018 monthly reports and weekly analysis revealed that “more than 40-50%” of subscribers were cancelling once promotions ended, it says. The suit references a former AT&T employee who saw “a 35% ‘take rate’ (or, 65% churn rate) for DirecTV Now.”

According to the suit, AT&T disclosed on Jan. 30 that virtually none of the 500,000 “heavily discounted” subscribers remained with the service. AT&T also said “that DirecTV Now subscriptions in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018 had declined by 267,000 subscribers—a stark reversal of supposed net adds in 4Q17 through 2Q18.”

The lawsuit, filed by Pomerantz LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP, seeks a trial. The firms are seeking compensatory damages, costs and interest from AT&T if the company is found guilty of violating security laws.

According to an AT&T spokesperson, the company “plan[s] to fight these baseless claims in court.”

BALTIMORE--Sinclair Broadcast Group on Tuesday answered Tribune’s lawsuit over their failed merger with a countersuit.

Sinclair agreed to acquire Tribune for $3.9 billion, but the deal fell through earlier this month after the Dept. of Justice and the FCC expressed objections.

Each company canceled the deal and Tribune sued Sinclair seeking damages of at least $1 billion and claimed that Sinclair did not move appropriately to achieve government consent.

[Read: Tribune Files Lawsuit Against Sinclair, Effectively Ending Merger]

"We were extremely disappointed that the Tribune transaction was terminated," said Chris Ripley, Sinclair's president & chief executive officer.

"We are likewise disappointed that Tribune, through its meritless lawsuit, is seeking to capitalize on an unfavorable and unexpected reaction from the Federal Communications Commission to capture a windfall for Tribune,” Ripley added. “Today, we filed our response to Tribune's complaint, along with a counterclaim against Tribune for breaching the merger agreement. As described in our filing, we fully complied with our obligations under the merger agreement and worked tirelessly to close the transaction. The Company looks forward to vigorously defending against Tribune's claims and pursuing our own claim."

Tribune responded with a statement of its own.

“Sinclair’s counterclaim to Tribune’s complaint is entirely meritless and simply an attempt to distract from its own significant legal exposure resulting from its persistent violations of Tribune’s contractual right,” Tribune said.

“As detailed in Tribune’s complaint, Sinclair repeatedly and willfully breached its contractual obligations during what should have been a straightforward regulatory review process," Tribune added. "Sinclair’s misconduct culminated in its submitting to the Federal Communications Commission divestiture proposals that led the Commission to order a hearing on the fundamental issue of Sinclair’s lack of candor, thus ending any chance at merger approval in any reasonable timeframe. Tribune looks forward to holding Sinclair accountable in court.”

NEW YORK—Claiming it "will suffer irreparable injury" because of alleged antitrust discrimination, the U.S. subsidiary of Chinese electronics/appliance manufacturer Haier Group is suing four major TV manufacturers plus other organizations for "monopolization" of ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) patents and for "conspiracy" to force Haier America Trading L.L.C. to pay a higher license fee to use the technology.

The lawsuit, filed quietly in New York in late August, accuses LG Electronics, Samsung Electronics, Panasonic Corp., Philips N.V., the Columbia University Trust Committee and MPEG LA LLC of colluding to create "unreasonable pricing" for the ATSC license, a fee that does not reflect the falling price of ATSC tuners, according to Haier. Zenith Electronics, LG's U.S. subsidiary which holds patents, is also named in the suit.

Haier also charged that MPEG LA has "attempted to maintain its excessive royalty rate by adding 'broadcasting' patents,'" which it characterized as "improper royalty stacking."

The case only deals with the original ATSC digital standard; it does not involve the emerging ATSC 3.0 standard.

The antitrust lawsuit is seen as retribution for the lawsuit that MPEG LA, the patent pool licensing organization, filed against Haier in March. In that suit, MPEG LA accused Haier of breaching its agreement to pay the ATSC licensing fees. Haier had deemed the fees ($5 per set) unfair and announced last year that it would cease payments at the end of 2016. The ATSC receiver royalty dropped to as low as $1 per set in January 2017. Haier claims that the ATSC license fee is "150 - 200 percent higher than comparable technology licenses in Europe."

Haier had a 3.4 percent worldwide TV set market share in 2016, slightly higher than its 2015 share, according to Statista Inc. By comparison, the global shares for other major TV makers in 2016 were 21.6 percent for Samsung, 11.9 percent for LG Electronics and 5.6 percent for Sony. 

Observers who requested anonymity told TV Technology that Haier's antitrust lawsuit could mark the beginning of legal battles against its competitors, especially the Korean companies LG and Samsung. News of the lawsuit emerged in Korean business publications shortly after the antitrust complained was filed in New York. Analysts said that they didn't understand why Haier picked on the five organization that are members of MPEG LA; nine of the member companies have patents on various ATSC features. Overall, 38 organizations belong to MPEG LA. The 11 claims in Haier's complaint single out some or all of the defendants for actions that Haier is challenging. 

Haier's staff and its lawyers who filed the antitrust suit did not respond to multiple requests for further information, and the defendants contacted also declined to comment on the case. 

Among the 11 claims that Haier makes in its filing—some directed at all of the defendants, others aimed at only two or three of the patent holders—are charges of restraint of trade, non-essential patent misuse, expiration dates for the licenses and breach of "good faith and fair dealing."

‘NON-ESSENTIAL PATENTS’ 

In its 48-page complaint and request for a jury trial, Haier claimed that the ATSC patent portfolio "forces licensees to purchase licenses to non-essential technology." For example, it cites 13 patents owned by LG for a method to identify "the status of a broadcast channel in a digital broadcast receiver" (known at the "LG Channel-Skipping Patents.") But Haier claims that the ATSC standard does not mandate such channel-skipping capability, and hence should not be required; Haier sets do not include such a feature.

Haier also contended that, in violation of U.S. antitrust policies, MPEG LA and the other defendants "have set royalty rates that raise costs" which "reduce or eliminate competition."

"The anticompetitive conduct ... has harmed competition ... since the ATSC patent pool was formed, including reducing the number of companies manufacturing televisions ... and increasing market share for certain licensors in the ATSC patent pool," Haier said.

“MPEG LA along with LG, Samsung, Philips, Panasonic and other licensors have conspired in restraint of trade to affect, raise, fix, maintain, and stabilize prices in the downstream product market by demanding an excessive, non-FRAND royalty rate for the ATSC standard,” according to Haier's complaint. "FRAND" refers to Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms in a voluntary licensing commitment, often used by standards organizations in patent licensing.

Haier claimed that it "attempted to negotiate license agreements ... on FRAND terms" with Samsung and LG, but both said that Haier must obtain licensing from MPEG LA.

Haier asked the court for "treble damages" of the amount "to be proven at trial" for the defendants' actions. There is no timetable for the new filing or for the MPEG LA's March suit against Haier. 

SAN FRANCISCO—The Kudelski Group announced today that its OpenTV, Inc. and Nagra France SAS subsidiaries have filed a patent infringement suit against Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiary AOL Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The lawsuit alleges that Verizon and AOL infringe seven U.S. patents owned by OpenTV and Nagra France and identifies the infringing products and services as including Verizon’s FiOS TV services, FiOS TV Everywhere services, Verizon’s Redbox Instant and Go90 video services and AOL’s Spot On advertising and streaming video services.