Sinclair, Inc.SBGI
Sinclair, Inc. Commitments Disclosure
11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:
Litigation, Claims, and Regulatory Matters
We are a party to lawsuits, claims, and regulatory matters from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Actions currently pending are in various stages and no material judgments or decisions have been rendered by hearing boards or courts in connection with such actions. Except as noted below, we do not believe the outcome of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements.
FCC Matters. On May 22, 2020, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released an Order and Consent Decree pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $48 million to resolve the matters covered by a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) issued in December 2017 proposing a $13 million fine for alleged violations of the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules by the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, the FCC’s investigation of the allegations raised in the Hearing Designation Order issued in connection with the Company’s proposed acquisition of Tribune, and a retransmission related matter. The Company submitted the $48 million payment on August 19, 2020. As part of the consent decree, the Company also agreed to implement a four-year compliance plan, which terminated on May 29, 2024. Two petitions were filed on June 8, 2020 seeking reconsideration of the consent decree. The Company filed an opposition to the petitions on June 18, 2020, and the petitions remain pending.
On September 1, 2020, one of the individuals who filed a petition for reconsideration of the consent decree filed a petition to deny the license renewal application of WBFF(TV), Baltimore, MD, and the license renewal applications of two other Baltimore, MD stations with which the Company has a JSA or LMA, Deerfield Media station WUTB(TV) and Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation (“Cunningham”) station WNUV(TV). On January 18, 2024, a motion was filed to request substitution of the petitioner, who is deceased. On June 27, 2025, the FCC (i) denied the motion for substitution; (ii) dismissed the petition to deny; and (iii) granted the license renewal applications of WBFF(TV), WUTB(TV), and WNUV(TV). An application for review of the FCC’s decision was filed on July 28, 2025 on behalf of the individual who unsuccessfully sought to be substituted for the petitioner in the proceeding. The Company timely filed an opposition to the application for review and the matter remains pending. On April 14, 2025, the same attorney who filed the petition against the renewal applications filed a similar petition to deny, on behalf of a different client, against assignment applications filed by the Company seeking FCC consent to sell certain stations to a third party. On July 1, 2025, the FCC dismissed that petition to deny and granted the applications. An application for review of the decision to grant the assignment applications was filed on behalf of the petitioner on July 30, 2025. The Company timely filed an opposition to the application for review and the matter remains pending.
On September 2, 2020, the FCC adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order and NAL against the licensees of several stations with whom the Company has LMAs, JSAs, and/or SSAs in response to a complaint regarding those stations’ retransmission consent negotiations. The NAL proposed a $0.5 million penalty for each station, totaling $9 million. The licensees filed a response to the NAL on October 15, 2020, asking the FCC to dismiss the proceeding or, alternatively, to reduce the proposed forfeiture to $25,000 per station. On July 28, 2021, the FCC issued a forfeiture order in which the $0.5 million penalty was upheld for all but one station. A Petition for Reconsideration of the forfeiture order was filed on August 7, 2021. On March 14, 2022, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, which reaffirmed the forfeiture order, dismissed (and in the alternative, denied) the Petition for Reconsideration, and stated that because the fines were not paid within the period stated in the July 2021 forfeiture order the FCC may refer the case to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to Section 504 of the Communications Act. Our understanding is that this matter remains pending. The Company is not a party to this forfeiture order.
On September 21, 2022, the FCC released an NAL against the licensees of a number of stations, including 83 Company stations and several stations with whom the Company has LMAs, JSAs, and/or SSAs, for violation of the FCC’s limitations on commercial matter in children’s television programming related to KidsClick network programming distributed by the Company in 2018. The NAL proposed a fine of $2.7 million against the Company, and fines ranging from $20,000 to $26,000 per station for the other licensees, including the LMA, JSA, and/or SSA stations, for a total of $3.4 million. On October 21, 2022, the Company filed a written response seeking reduction of the proposed fine amount. On September 6, 2024, the FCC issued a forfeiture order imposing the fine as proposed in the NAL. The Company and all other affected licensees filed a joint petition for reconsideration of the forfeiture order on October 7, 2024. On June 27, 2025, the FCC adopted an Order and Consent Decree pursuant to which the Company agreed to make a voluntary contribution of $500,000 to resolve, without any admission of liability, the forfeiture order (with respect to Company stations), a closed captioning investigation of Company station WUHF in Rochester, NY, and matters relating to certain of the Company’s pending station renewal applications. As part of the consent decree, the Company also agreed to implement a two-year compliance plan relating to the FCC’s limits on commercial matter in children’s programming and closed captioning rules, and the FCC agreed to grant the license renewal applications of all Company stations involved in the matters resolved by the consent decree. The consent decree states the forfeiture order will be resolved by separate action with respect to the non-Company licensees named in the forfeiture order, and to the Company’s knowledge all but one of such non-Company licensees have entered into non-monetary consent decrees with the FCC and agreed to similar compliance plans with respect to the FCC’s limits on commercial matter in children’s programming. The Company made the $500,000 voluntary contribution on July 9, 2025.
Other Matters. On November 6, 2018, the Company agreed to enter into a proposed consent decree with the DOJ. This consent decree resolves the DOJ’s investigation into the sharing of pacing information among certain stations in some local markets. The DOJ filed the consent decree and related documents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 13, 2018. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered the consent decree on May 22, 2019. The consent decree is not an admission of any wrongdoing by the Company and does not subject the Company to any monetary damages or penalties. The Company believes that even if the pacing information was shared as alleged, it would not have impacted any pricing of advertisements or the competitive nature of the market. The consent decree requires the Company to adopt certain antitrust compliance measures, including the appointment of an Antitrust Compliance Officer, consistent with what the DOJ has required in previous consent decrees in other industries. The consent decree also requires the Company’s stations not to exchange pacing and certain other information with other stations in their local markets, which the Company’s management had already instructed them not to do.
The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits that were filed against the Company following published reports of the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 6, 2020. Discovery commenced shortly after that and is continuing. On December 8, 2023, the Court granted final approval of the settlements the plaintiffs had reached with four of the original defendants (CBS, Fox, Cox Media, and ShareBuilders), who agreed to pay a total of $48 million to settle the plaintiffs’ claims against them. The plaintiffs are continuing to pursue their claims against the Company and the other non-settling defendants, and fact discovery closes on June 1, 2026. On December 6, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking sanctions against the Company in connection with the loss of certain cell phone data. On November 18, 2025, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on the plaintiffs’ motion seeking sanctions, declining as premature the plaintiffs’ request to present evidence of Sinclair’s spoliation at summary judgment and trial, and imposing monetary sanctions on Sinclair for the costs of the plaintiffs’ investigation between April 30, 2024 and the filing of the motion seeking sanctions. On February 20, 2025, Special Master Richard Levie issued Report and Recommendation No. 3 addressing the plaintiffs’ challenges to certain of non-settling defendants’ privilege log entries (“Levie R&R No. 3”), which recommended that the Court compel disclosure of certain documents Sinclair and the other non-settling defendants withheld from discovery based on assertions of privilege. On October 20, 2025, the Court issued an order adopting Levie R&R No. 3 and denying the objections to Levie R&R No. 3 made by Sinclair and the other non-settling defendants, compelling the production of 6,313 documents Sinclair withheld as privileged. Special Master Wayne R. Andersen has addressed the plaintiffs’ remaining challenges to certain of Sinclair’s and other non-settling defendants’ privilege log entries. On September 29, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 3 (“Andersen R&R No. 3”); on October 23, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 6 (“Andersen R&R No. 6”); on November 17, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 8 (“Andersen R&R No. 8”); and on November 18, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 9 (“Andersen R&R No. 9”). In each report and recommendation, Special Master Andersen recommended granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ challenges. No party appealed Andersen R&R No. 3, which compelled the production of two documents Sinclair withheld as privileged. The plaintiffs objected to Andersen R&R No. 6, Andersen R&R No. 8, and Andersen R&R No. 9. On January 22, 2026, the Court issued an order rejecting the objections and adopting Andersen R&R No. 6, Andersen R&R No. 8, and Andersen R&R No. 9. Andersen R&R No. 6 compelled the production of 252 documents, Andersen R&R No. 8 compelled the production of 79 documents, and Andersen R&R No. 9 compelled the production of 10 documents. On December 16, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 13 (“Andersen R&R No. 13”), also addressing the plaintiffs’ challenges to certain of Sinclair’s privilege log entries. The plaintiffs filed objections to Andersen R&R No. 13 on January 16, 2026, and Sinclair filed a response on January 30, 2026. The Court’s review of the plaintiffs’ challenges to Sinclair’s privilege claims will be completed upon its ruling on the plaintiffs’ objects to Andersen R&R No. 13. On January 23, 2026, the Court informed the parties that it will issue a new scheduling order, setting a trial date in November 2027. The parties are awaiting the issuance of the order. The Company continues to believe the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims.
On July 19, 2023, as part of the bankruptcy proceedings of DSG, at such time, an independently managed and unconsolidated subsidiary of Sinclair, DSG and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Diamond Sports Net, LLC, filed a complaint (the “Diamond Litigation”), under seal, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas naming certain subsidiaries of Sinclair, including SBG and STG and certain officers of SBG and STG, as defendants.
In the complaint, plaintiffs challenged a series of transactions involving SBG and certain of its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and DSG and its subsidiaries, on the other hand, since SBG acquired the former Fox Sports regional sports networks from The Walt Disney Company in August 2019. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the management services agreement (the “MSA”) entered into by STG and DSG was not fair to DSG and was designed to benefit STG and SBG; that the Bally’s Corporation (“Bally’s”) transaction in November 2020 through which Bally’s acquired naming rights to certain regional sports networks was not fair to DSG and was designed to benefit STG and SBG; and that certain distributions made by DSG that were used to pay down preferred equity of DSH, were inappropriate and were conducted at a time when DSG was insolvent. The complaint also alleged that SBG and its subsidiaries (other than DSG and its subsidiaries) received payments or indirect benefits of approximately $1.5 billion as a result of the alleged misconduct. The complaint asserted a variety of claims, including certain fraudulent transfers of assets, unlawful distributions and payments, breaches of contracts, unjust enrichment and breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, avoidance of fraudulent transfers and unlawful distributions, and unspecified monetary damages to be determined.
On March 1, 2024, the court approved a global settlement and release of all claims associated with the Diamond Litigation, which settlement included an amendment to the MSA. Sinclair entered into the settlement, without admitting any fault or wrongdoing. The settlement terms included, among other things, DSG’s dismissal with prejudice of its $1.5 billion litigation against Sinclair and all other defendants, along with the full and final satisfaction and release of all claims in that litigation against all defendants, including Sinclair and its subsidiaries, in exchange for Sinclair’s cash payment to DSG of $495 million. Additionally, under the terms of the settlement, Sinclair would provide transition services to DSG to allow DSG to become a self-standing entity going forward. During the first quarter of 2024, we paid $50 million related to the settlement. The final settlement payment was made during the second quarter of 2024 and of the total $495 million settlement amount paid, $347 million was paid by STG and $148 million was paid by Ventures. On January 2, 2025, DSG announced that it had emerged from bankruptcy, at which time, Sinclair’s equity interest in DSG was terminated.
We have provided a guarantee that requires us to provide funding to Marquee under certain circumstances. On July 19, 2024, Marquee sent us a funding notice seeking $29 million under the Marquee guarantee by August 1, 2024 purportedly to make payments under certain agreements to affiliates of the Chicago Cubs, an affiliate of which is also a co-owner of Marquee. Based on the information provided to us by Marquee, Marquee has sufficient cash to make such payments without funding under the Marquee guarantee. For this and other reasons, we do not believe we are contractually required to provide funding under the Marquee guarantee at this time and have so informed Marquee. On August 2, 2024, Marquee sent us another letter claiming that our failure to timely pay the amounts subject to Marquee’s funding notice constitutes a breach of the Marquee guarantee and requesting payment of such amounts no later than August 17, 2024 at which time Marquee has stated it will pursue any and all available remedies pursuant to the Marquee guarantee. As of January 1, 2025, we determined we had no further obligations under the guarantee agreement. Marquee disputed this position, and on June 9, 2025, we entered into a binding term sheet to settle the matter. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed that the guarantee would be in effect through 2029; however, the maximum obligation under the guarantee agreement was reduced. As a result of the execution of this binding term sheet, we have concluded that our obligation to pay under a portion of the guarantee is probable and the loss related thereto could be reasonably estimated, thus recorded an estimated obligation related to this arrangement during the year ended December 31, 2025 (as further discussed in Note 6. Notes Payable and Commercial Bank Financing). Because loss contingencies are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments can occur, the assessment requires judgment about future events. Moreover, there is no assurance that contingencies will be satisfied and the ultimate loss may differ materially from the estimated obligation we have recorded.
Changes in the Rules of Television Ownership, Local Marketing Agreements, Joint Sales Agreements, Retransmission Consent Negotiations, and National Ownership Cap
Certain of our stations have entered into what have commonly been referred to as local marketing agreements or LMAs. One typical type of LMA is a programming agreement between two separately owned television stations serving the same market, whereby the licensee of one station programs substantial portions of the broadcast day and sells advertising time during such programming segments on the other licensee’s station subject to the latter licensee’s ultimate editorial and other controls. We believe these arrangements allow us to reduce our operating expenses and enhance profitability.
In 1999, the FCC established a local television ownership rule that made certain LMAs attributable. The FCC adopted policies to exempt from attribution “legacy” LMAs that were entered into prior to November 5, 1996 and permitted the applicable stations to continue operations pursuant to the LMAs until the conclusion of the FCC’s 2004 biennial review. The FCC stated it would conduct a case-by-case review of legacy LMAs and assess the appropriateness of extending the exemption periods. The FCC did not initiate any review of legacy LMAs in 2004 or as part of its subsequent quadrennial reviews. We do not know when, or if, the FCC will conduct any such review of legacy LMAs. Currently, all of our LMAs are exempt from attribution under the Local Television Ownership Rule because they were entered into prior to November 5, 1996. If the FCC were to eliminate the exemption for these LMAs, we would have to terminate or modify these LMAs.
On December 18, 2017, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to examine the FCC’s national ownership cap, including the UHF discount. The UHF discount allows television station owners to discount the coverage of UHF stations when calculating compliance with the FCC’s national ownership cap, which prohibits a single entity from owning television stations that reach, in total, more than 39% of all the television households in the nation. On June 18, 2025, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment to update the public record in this proceeding on whether to modify, retain, or eliminate the 39% national audience reach cap and/or the UHF discount. All but 21 of the stations we currently own and operate, or to which we provide programming services, are UHF. We cannot predict the outcome of the rulemaking proceeding. With the application of the UHF discount counting all our present stations we reach approximately 23% of U.S. households. Changes to the national ownership cap could limit our ability to make television station acquisitions.
On December 22, 2023, the FCC completed its 2018 Quadrennial Regulatory Review (the “2018 Ownership Order”). The 2018 Ownership Order declined to loosen or eliminate any of the existing television ownership rules, including the “Top-Four Prohibition” (which generally restricted common ownership of two top-four rated stations in a market), and amended Note 11 to its ownership rules to prohibit a broadcaster with a top-four-rated television station from acquiring the network affiliation of another top-four rated station in the market and airing that second top-four network on a multicast stream or commonly owned LPTV station under certain circumstances (the “Note 11 Expansion”). The 2018 Ownership Order also revised the methodology for determining whether a station is rated among the top-four stations in the market, retained the SSA disclosure requirement, and declined to attribute SSAs or JSAs. Broadcast industry parties filed three separate appeals of the 2018 Ownership Order which were consolidated in March 2024 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On July 23, 2025, the Eighth Circuit issued a decision vacating the Top-Four Prohibition and the Note 11 Expansion, and such rules ceased to be effective on October 23, 2025.
On December 22, 2022, the FCC released a Public Notice to initiate the 2022 Quadrennial Regulatory Review. On September 30, 2025, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 2022 Quadrennial Regulatory Review proceeding, seeking further comment on the Local Television Ownership Rule. This proceeding remains pending. We cannot predict the outcome of that rulemaking proceeding. Changes to these rules could impact our ability to make radio or television station acquisitions.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 27, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 26, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 29, 2024 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.