Appeals Court Issues Mixed Ruling On Fcc S Ownership Rules

Leo Migdal

-Dec 6, 2025, 9:31 AM

appeals court issues mixed ruling on fcc s ownership rules

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Wednesday issued a mixed ruling on a report delivered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) two years ago that affirmed certain ownership restrictions for broadcast radio... In the decision on Wednesday, the appellate court sided with the FCC in retaining certain radio and TV station ownership limits but vacated parts of the “Local Television Ownership Rule” that limited how many... The rule largely prohibited broadcasters from owning two or more of the “top four” rated TV stations in a market unless they obtained a waiver from the FCC. Congress requires the FCC to review that rule and others regarding broadcast TV and radio ownership every four years — a deadline that the FCC has repeatedly missed over the past decade. The 2023 report was actually linked to the agency’s statutory requirement to evaluate its ownership rules in 2018.

The National Association of Broadcasters and a handful of broadcast companies sued the agency to force the report. The FCC approved the report by a 3-2 vote that was cast along party lines. In approving the report, the FCC defended the rule’s continuation and expanded the methodology for defining what consists of a “top four” station to include low-power stations and multicast streams. On Wednesday, the appellate court said the FCC lacked justification to expand the rule. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision this week on the appeals of the FCC’s December 2023 decision following its 2018 Quadrennial Review (see our summary here) to leave the local... The Court’s decision was a victory for television owners, declaring the restrictions on the ownership of two of the Top 4 TV stations in any market to be contrary to the record and ending...

The Court also provided a more sweeping victory to the industry, concluding that the Quadrennial Review proceeding was inherently a deregulatory one. In the Quadrennial Review process, the FCC can retain the rules that it has or relax them based on the effects of competition. It cannot tighten them, leading the Court to throw out the one new aspect of the 2023 decision – expanding the prohibition on a company acquiring a second TV network affiliation and moving it... While this decision gives the TV industry much to celebrate, the decision was not a total victory for the broadcast industry. The radio rules remain unchanged, as do the TV limits that do not allow an interest in more than 2 TV stations in any market. The Court had been urged to find that these rules were no longer supportable in light of competition from digital media.

The Court looked at the statutory requirement that the Commission review these rules every 4 years in light of competition, and decided to defer to the FCC’s policy judgment that the proper scope of... The Court deferred to the FCC’s findings that broadcasting’s unique local nature and its broad-based advertising reach (as opposed to the individually-targeted ads of digital competitors) made it different from digital media. Therefore, the Court upheld the FCC’s findings that broadcasting was still a unique marketplace where the public interest required limits on how many stations one party can own in a market. Certainly, most broadcasters, particularly in radio, would be surprised to know that they do not compete with digital – but that was the effect of the Court’s decision. So, what’s next? In a few places in the Court’s decision, there were statements that suggested that the judge’s view of competition might have been different than that of the majority of the 2023 FCC.

But, as Courts are to defer to administrative agencies on policy judgements (as opposed to judgements as to the meaning of a law, where a Court can substitute its judgement for that of an... But that is not to say that the FCC’s 2023 views on competition are written in stone and cannot be changed. Clearly, a different FCC can review an updated record and conclude that the industry has in fact changed, and that digital companies do in fact compete with radio and local TV. A new FCC, like the one that is currently in place, is permitted to conclude that the public interest demands that the rules be relaxed (or eliminated because they no longer serve any useful... As we wrote several months ago, there were two ways that ownership deregulation might come for local radio and TV. One was through this Court decision which, except for the victory on the Top 4 issue, unfortunately did not occur.

The other is from the FCC itself. The FCC is supposed to be conducting its 2022 Quadrennial Review, which needs to be completed quickly so that a 2026 review can begin. That means that the new Commission, headed by Chairman Carr who has in the past said that the radio ownership rules are a relic of another age and that the industry is at a... With the ball back in the FCC’s Court (once it resolves the question of whether it will offer any justification for the Top 4 rule in the 90 days provided by the Court), we... While the Court’s failure to throw out those rules pushes the timeline back a few months from what the industry may have preferred, we still expect that these proposals will be offered at some... And, given the “break-glass” moment that the Chairman has recognized exists for the industry, we would expect quick actions once the proceeding starts.

We are still bullish on changes to be effective in 2026 – let us hope that the FCC comes through. NAB, FCC chair Brendan Carr applaud 8th Circuit’s ruling overturning FCC rules that station groups can’t own more than one of the four most-watched TV stations in a market When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works. WASHINGTON—In an important development in the battle over broadcast ownership regulations, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the Federal Communications Commission’s rules against a station group owning more than one of the top-four TV stations in audience share in a given market.

The St. Louis-based court also vacated an amendment to “Note 11” in the FCC rules that tightened how the top four stations are determined, but declined to undo rules governing radio stations and denied the petition... Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC is required to review its broadcast ownership rules every four years and repeal or modify any that are no longer in the public interest. Following a December 2023 FCC order retaining existing regulations as part of its 2018 quadrennial review, the National Association of Broadcasters and a coalition of local broadcasters challenged the order, arguing that the FCC’s... A long-awaited federal court ruling on the FCC’s 2018 Quadrennial Review of broadcast media rules has opened the door for potential future challenges to radio ownership restrictions, even as the agency’s current rules remain... The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed decision Tuesday in a consolidated case brought by Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri, Beasley Media Group, the NAB, and other broadcast stakeholders.

The petitioners challenged the FCC’s 2023 Order, which upheld longstanding limits on local radio ownership. The court upheld the FCC’s authority to define the audio marketplace, noting that the Commission “acknowledged the rise of non-broadcast audio” but “declined to consider it as meaningful competition,” citing radio’s unique status as... Petitioners had argued that failing to account for digital competition in the radio market analysis violates the Telecommunications Act’s directive to modernize rules “in the public interest as the result of competition.” Although those provisions survived judicial review under the deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard, the court made clear that the FCC’s justifications remain open to future scrutiny, especially as the 2022 Quadrennial Review remains unresolved. On July 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated two aspects of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC or Commission) regulation restricting the number of television stations that one entity can own in a local market.

The court vacated the prohibition on ownership of two of the top four stations in a local market (the Top Four Prohibition) and the FCC’s expansion of the Top Four Prohibition to reach multicast... The Eighth Circuit’s vacatur of the Top Four Prohibition and the Note 11 Amendment is significant for the television industry. Equally important is the Eighth Circuit’s holding that the federal statute directing the FCC to review its media ownership regulations every four years is “deregulatory [in] nature” and cannot be used by the agency... That holding will shape future quadrennial reviews and may help to achieve Congress’s deregulatory purpose in directing the FCC’s periodic reviews. The decision, Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri v. FCC, marks the latest development in a decades-long litigation saga concerning the FCC’s media ownership rules.

Below, we discuss the Eighth Circuit’s decision, its practical impacts, and potential FCC action. Section 202(h) of the 1996 Telecom Act requires the FCC to review its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether they are still “necessary in the public interest as the result of... In the Report and Order completing the 2018 Quadrennial Review (released in December 2023), the FCC retained its existing broadcast ownership rules and expanded the Top Four Prohibition by adopting the Note 11 Amendment. The Zimmer Radio Petitioners and Intervenors, including the National Association of Broadcasters representing thousands of television and radio broadcasters, challenged the Order. Specifically, the Petitioners and Intervenors challenged the FCC’s decision to retain the Local Radio and Television Ownership Rules, as well as several discrete aspects of those rules. In a significant ruling, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has delivered a partial blow to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) long-standing Local Television Ownership Rule, specifically targeting the provision known as the Top-Four Prohibition. The decision, handed down on July 23, 2025, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over media consolidation and competition in local television markets. The Top-Four Prohibition has been a cornerstone of the FCC’s regulatory framework for decades, preventing broadcast station owners from controlling more than one of the top four rated full-power television stations in a single... The FCC has long defended the rule, arguing it promotes competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity by preventing dominant players from consolidating control over the most influential stations. In its 2023 Order, the FCC reaffirmed the prohibition and introduced minor revisions to how it determines a station’s “top-four” status, incorporating audience share data that now accounts for multicast streams. However, the Eighth Circuit found the FCC’s justifications lacking, criticizing the agency for failing to provide current evidence to support the rule.

“The FCC’s justifications for the Top-Four Prohibition run counter to the evidence before the agency,” the three-judge panel wrote in its decision. Broadcasters challenging the rule presented data from dozens of markets where the top-ranked station’s audience share far exceeded the combined totals of the second-, third-, and fourth-ranked stations. This evidence, the court argued, undermines the FCC’s claim that top-four combinations inherently harm competition. The court also took issue with the FCC’s assertions about the role of top-four stations in producing local news and maintaining affiliations with major broadcast networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX. The panel noted that the FCC relied on outdated studies and offered “conclusory assertions” without sufficient data to back its claims. This lack of empirical support weakened the agency’s case for maintaining the prohibition.

In a further rebuke, the court vacated a 2023 FCC change that tightened restrictions on broadcasters acquiring additional network affiliations through multicast streams or low-power TV stations. The FCC had argued that the change closed “loopholes” that allowed broadcasters to skirt the Top-Four Prohibition. However, the court found the agency’s reasoning inadequate, stating that the restriction could stifle innovation, particularly in smaller markets where broadcasters often rely on multicast streams to deliver diverse programming. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit delivered a significant victory to television broadcasters Wednesday, vacating the Federal Communications Commission’s rule prohibiting ownership of more than one top-four-rated station in a market while leaving... The St.

Louis-based court found the FCC’s justification for retaining the Top-Four Prohibition “arbitrary and capricious” and “unsupported by the record,” marking a rare judicial rebuke of the agency’s media ownership policies. The ruling stems from challenges to the FCC’s December 2023 order completing its long-delayed 2018 quadrennial review of broadcast ownership rules. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC must review its broadcast ownership rules every four years to determine whether they remain “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.” The Commission... The three-judge panel determined that the FCC’s rationale for maintaining the television rule contradicted available evidence. The Commission had argued that top-four combinations would result in excessive market concentration, but the court found this assertion “factually questionable,” noting that record evidence showed combinations between third- and fourth-ranked stations would not... In a major decision impacting the future of media ownership, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has upheld the Federal Communications Commission's local radio ownership rules while partially striking down key limits on television ownership. The ruling, issued July 23, preserves long-standing caps on the number of AM and FM stations a company may own in a single market -- a disappointment for radio broadcasters who argued the rules... A group of radio companies -- including Beasley Media Group, Connoisseur Media, Midwest Communications, and others -- had petitioned the court to overturn the FCC's 2023 decision to retain local radio ownership limits without... They argued that the Commission failed to account for a decade-long decline in broadcast radio revenue and rising competition from digital audio platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music. But the court deferred to the FCC's judgment, concluding that the agency acted within its authority when it chose to define the relevant market as broadcast radio only -- excluding streaming and satellite audio. In a 41-page opinion, Judge Bobby Shepherd wrote, "The FCC considered the growing prevalence of non-broadcast programming and articulated a rational reason for declining to broaden its market definition."

The court also upheld the FCC's use of "subcaps," which limit the number of AM or FM stations a licensee can own in a given market. The FCC had previously warned that relaxing those limits could hasten the decline of the AM band and lead to excessive consolidation in FM. The judges agreed, noting these were "predictive judgments to which judicial deference is especially important." The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which led the challenge along with a coalition of station groups, called the court's radio ruling a missed opportunity. "We are disappointed that the court stopped short of addressing the decades-old radio ownership restrictions that defy economic reality and weaken broadcasters' ability to compete, invest in local journalism and serve their communities," said...

Appeals Court Issues Mixed Ruling On Fcc S Ownership Rules

People Also Search

The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit On

The National Association Of Broadcasters And A Handful Of Broadcast

The Court Also Provided A More Sweeping Victory To The

The Court Looked At The Statutory Requirement That The Commission

But, As Courts Are To Defer To Administrative Agencies On