XML 36 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.3

Other matters | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Other matters | NOTE 10 – Other matters Litigation Litigation Relating to the Merger As of November 10, 2025, three complaints have been filed by purported stockholders of TEGNA in connection with the Merger: Faul v. TEGNA Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-12161 (filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 3, 2025), Cohen v. TEGNA Inc., et al., Index No. 659416/2025 (filed in New York County on October 28, 2025), and Brady v. TEGNA Inc., et. al., Index No. 659438/2025 (filed in New York County on October 29, 2025). The complaints generally allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed by TEGNA on September 17, 2025 in connection with the Merger (the “Preliminary Proxy Statement”) or the definitive proxy statement filed by TEGNA on October 10, 2025 in connection with the Merger (the “Definitive Proxy Statement”) include false and misleading information and/or fail to disclose allegedly material information in violation of federal or state law. The complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin TEGNA from consummating the Merger, or in the alternative, rescission of the Merger and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorneys’ and expert fees. In addition to these complaints, TEGNA has received demand letters from counsel representing purported stockholders of TEGNA, alleging similar deficiencies and/or omissions in the Preliminary Proxy Statement or the Definitive Proxy Statement. TEGNA believes that the allegations in these actions are without merit. Additional complaints arising out of the Merger may be filed in the future, and additional demand letters arising out of the Merger may be received in the future. Antitrust matters In the third quarter of 2018, certain national media outlets reported the existence of a confidential investigation by the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) into the local television advertising sales practices of station owners. We received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) in connection with the DOJ’s investigation. On November 13 and December 13, 2018, the DOJ and seven other broadcasters settled a DOJ complaint alleging the exchange of certain competitively sensitive information in the broadcast television industry. In June 2019, we and four other broadcasters entered into a substantially identical agreement with DOJ, which was entered by the court on December 3, 2019. The settlement contains no finding of wrongdoing or liability and carries no penalty. It prohibits us and the other settling entities from sharing certain confidential business information as alleged by the DOJ, or using such information pertaining to other broadcasters, except under limited circumstances. The settlement also requires the settling parties to make certain enhancements to their antitrust compliance programs, to continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation, and to permit DOJ to verify compliance. The costs of compliance have not been material, nor do we expect future compliance costs to be material. Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions. Plaintiffs are a putative class consisting of all persons and entities in the United States who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local television provided by the defendants. The Advertising Cases assert antitrust and other claims and seek monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against the allegedly wrongful conduct. These cases were consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned In re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation on October 3, 2018. At the court’s direction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2019, that superseded the original complaints. Although we were named as a defendant in sixteen of the original complaints, the amended complaint did not name TEGNA as a defendant. After TEGNA and four other broadcasters entered into the consent decrees with the DOJ in June 2019, the plaintiffs sought leave from the court to further amend the complaint to add TEGNA and the other settling broadcasters to the proceeding. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, and the plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on September 9, 2019. On October 8, 2019, the defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the matter. On November 6, 2020, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On March 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which, among other things, added ShareBuilders, Inc., as a named defendant. ShareBuilders filed a motion to dismiss on April 15, 2022, which was granted by the court without prejudice on August 29, 2022. TEGNA has filed its answer to the third amended complaint denying any violation of law and asserting various affirmative defenses. On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of settlements with four co-defendants – CBS Corp (n/k/a Paramount Global), Fox Corp., certain Cox entities (including Cox Media Group, LLC, Cox Enterprises, Inc., CMG Media Corporation and Cox Reps, Inc.) and ShareBuilders, Inc. Although ShareBuilders prevailed on its motion to dismiss the case, as noted above, because the court had dismissed the claims without prejudice, ShareBuilders entered into a zero-dollar settlement with the plaintiffs in order to ensure that the plaintiffs do not re-file the claims in the future. In exchange for a release of plaintiffs’ claims against them, the settling defendants, among other things, collectively agreed to pay $48 million, while expressly denying any liability or wrongdoing. The court approved the settlements in December 2023. Discovery in the Advertising Cases is ongoing. We believe that the claims asserted in the Advertising Cases are without merit and are defending vigorously against them. Other litigation matters We, along with a number of our subsidiaries, also are defendants in other judicial and administrative proceedings involving matters incidental to our business. We do not believe that any material liability will be imposed as a result of any of the foregoing matters. Related Party Transactions We have an equity investment in MadHive, Inc. (MadHive) which is a related party of TEGNA. We also have a commercial agreement with MadHive, which expires on December 31, 2025, under which MadHive provides platform services to our Premion business. We previously had an additional commercial agreement with MadHive under which Premion had access to streaming inventory available in MadHive’s demand site platform. That agreement expired as of December 31, 2024. In the third quarter and first nine months of 2025, we incurred expenses of $0.2 million and $0.5 million, respectively, as a result of the commercial agreement with MadHive. In the third quarter and first nine months of 2024, we incurred expenses of $16.4 million and $53.7 million, respectively, as a result of the commercial agreements with MadHive. As of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, we had accounts receivable associated with the MadHive commercial agreements of $0.1 million and $0.4 million, respectively.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration