How have recent mergers changed US media ownership?
Executive summary
Recent FCC rulemaking and legal challenges are reopening the path for further consolidation in U.S. broadcast media: the FCC launched a new review of ownership rules in September 2025 and is seeking public comment on whether long-standing limits — including the 39% national TV audience cap — should be changed [1]. Opponents argue Congress codified that 39% cap in the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act and that the FCC lacks authority to repeal it, a claim raised by the American Television Alliance in late 2025 [2] [3].
1. Big picture: A regulatory reset that invites deals and debate
The FCC’s September 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking reopened its quadrennial review of media ownership rules and asked whether decades-old restrictions should be retained, modified or eliminated amid changing viewing habits [1]. That process creates a window for companies seeking scale: prior reviews produced major loosening in 2017, and the current NPRM explicitly contemplates similar changes today [1]. Broadcast-law observers and industry actors are preparing to press their cases in the comment docket created by the commission [4].
2. The 39% national TV cap: statutory anchor or removable relic?
Congress put the 39% national audience reach cap into law in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 and exempted that cap from the FCC’s usual four-year review, creating a persistent statutory constraint [3]. The ATVA has formally told the FCC it lacks authority to lift or eliminate that cap because Congress codified it — a legal argument that directly challenges any FCC effort to scrap the rule without Congressional action [2]. The dispute centers on whether the agency can reinterpret or rescind a cap that Congress explicitly placed outside the quadrennial-review process [3].
3. Loopholes and workarounds that have already changed ownership in practice
Even with formal caps, industry has expanded reach through mechanisms such as the “UHF discount” and channel-sharing or operational partnerships that reduce calculated audience reach [1] [3]. Congress and the FCC have repeatedly extended deadlines and adapted treatment of joint sales agreements and attributable arrangements, allowing companies to structure transactions and operating agreements that increase effective control without changing the headline ownership numbers [3]. Legal and technical workarounds have thus been a major force enabling consolidation even when statutory limits remain in place [3].
4. Who benefits — and who warns of harms
Large broadcast groups and conglomerates have pressed for relaxation of rules to permit bigger national footprints and cross-ownership, arguing older regulations don’t reflect digital distribution or current marketplace realities [1]. By contrast, advocacy groups and some local media actors warn that further consolidation could reduce localism, limit diversity of voices and harm competition in local markets — the same themes that animated opposition during previous reviews [1]. Public-interest organizations and trade associations are already filing comments and legal briefs on both sides [2] [1].
5. Notable context: ownership concentration beyond broadcasts
Analyses and indexes of media ownership show a concentrated U.S. media landscape driven by large conglomerates and wealthy owners; projects mapping ownership count hundreds of parent companies and thousands of newsrooms, underscoring that mergers and ownership shifts matter across print, cable, streaming and local outlets [5] [6]. Nonprofit research and advocacy groups track the biggest corporate players and highlight how ownership forms — private equity, billionaires, conglomerates — influence editorial choices and business strategy [7] [8].
6. What to watch next: rulemaking milestones and litigation risks
The FCC’s NPRM opened a public-comment period that will yield replies and, eventually, a decision that could prompt transactions or provoke lawsuits [1] [4]. Key near-term markers include the comment deadlines set by the Media Bureau and any petitions challenging FCC authority to alter statutorily enshrined limits like the 39% cap [4] [2]. If the FCC moves to change rules and industry pursues rapid mergers, expect immediate legal challenges centered on statutory authority [2] [3].
Limitations: available sources do not list specific mergers completed in 2024–2025 or quantify market shares resulting from particular transactions; they instead focus on regulatory changes, statutory constraints, advocacy positions and ownership-mapping projects [2] [1] [5] [3].