## Facts

- Mediacom Communications Corp. operated cable television systems serving subscribers in multiple markets, including markets where it carried Sinclair stations.
- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. owned and operated broadcast television stations, including major-network affiliates and other stations, in overlapping designated market areas.
- Federal law required Sinclair stations to elect either must-carry status or retransmission consent for carriage on cable systems during a three-year cycle; retransmission consent allowed negotiation for compensation and permitted withholding consent absent agreement.
- Beginning in 2002, Mediacom carried 22 Sinclair stations under a retransmission agreement that renewed monthly and could be terminated on 45 days’ notice.
- In 2005, Sinclair elected retransmission consent for all 22 stations and sought higher compensation, pressing for carriage and payment for the full group of stations.
- Mediacom was willing to pay for carriage of 13 stations but not the remaining nine; negotiations failed.
- Sinclair entered a retransmission agreement with a satellite provider and gave Mediacom notice terminating the 2002 agreement.
- Mediacom alleged Sinclair marketed directly to Mediacom subscribers warning that Sinclair programming might be lost on Mediacom, prompting customers to switch providers and causing lost subscribers, goodwill, and advertising revenue.
- Mediacom sued alleging (1) unlawful tying/restraint of trade under Sherman Act § 1, plus state-law tortious interference and unfair competition, and moved for a preliminary injunction to block termination and certain marketing.

## Issues

1. Whether Mediacom showed a likelihood of success on the merits that Sinclair’s station “bundling” and bargaining conduct constituted an unlawful tying arrangement or other restraint of trade under Sherman Act § 1.
2. Whether Mediacom showed irreparable harm absent an injunction, rather than primarily compensable economic injury.
3. Whether the balance of harms and the public interest favored enjoining termination of the retransmission agreement and restricting Sinclair’s marketing.

## Decision

- The court denied Mediacom’s motion for a preliminary injunction and expedited relief.
- Mediacom did not show a sufficient likelihood of success on its Sherman Act tying theory on the preliminary record, given the competitive context and the retransmission-consent framework authorizing hard bargaining and the possibility of withholding consent.
- Mediacom’s asserted injuries (lost customers, goodwill, and advertising revenue) were largely measurable and compensable by damages and therefore not irreparable.
- The balance of harms weighed against forcing continuation of carriage and restricting Sinclair’s marketing, which would interfere with Sinclair’s bargaining and competitive conduct.
- The public interest favored allowing negotiation to proceed within the regulatory scheme and avoiding judicial distortion of retransmission-consent bargaining.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires consideration of likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and the public interest.
- An unlawful tying claim generally requires proof of (i) two distinct products, (ii) conditioning of one on the other, (iii) market power in the tying product, and (iv) a not insubstantial effect on commerce in the tied product.
- Economic losses such as reduced revenues, lost subscribers, and related goodwill injury are commonly treated as remediable by monetary damages absent a concrete showing of non-compensable injury.
- Courts are reluctant to use equitable relief to compel continuation of commercial relationships or to restructure bargaining outcomes where federal law authorizes negotiation and potential impasse.

## Conclusion

The court refused to preliminarily enjoin a broadcaster’s termination of a retransmission-consent agreement and related competitive marketing because the plaintiff did not establish a likely antitrust or state-law violation, did not show non-compensable irreparable harm, and failed to demonstrate that the balance of harms and public interest justified extraordinary relief.


Mediacom Commc’ns Corp. v. Sinclair Broad. Grp., Inc., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (S.D. Iowa 2006)