COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	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 our 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 Order and 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 Order and 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). The Company filed an opposition to the petition on October 1, 2020. On January 18, 2024, a motion was filed to request substitution of the petitioner, who is deceased. On January 29, 2024, the Company filed (1) an opposition to the motion for substitution and (2) a motion to dismiss the petition to deny the renewal applications. An opposition was filed to the motion to dismiss on February 5, 2024, and the Company timely filed its reply on February 13, 2024, and the matter remains pending. Licensees are authorized to continue operating stations in accordance with their existing licenses while their renewal applications are pending before the FCC. On April 14, 2025, the same attorney who filed the earlier petition against WBFF(TV), on behalf of a different client, filed a similar petition to deny against applications by the Company seeking FCC consent to sell certain stations to a third party. The Company timely opposed the petition on April 24, 2025, the petitioner filed a reply on May 1, 2025, 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 enforcement remains pending. The Company is not a party to this forfeiture order; however, our consolidated financial statements include an accrual of additional expenses of $8 million for the above legal matters during the year ended December 31, 2021, as we consolidate these stations as VIEs. 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. As of March 31, 2025, we have accrued $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 denied the Company’s request for reduction of the fine (and similar requests filed by certain other licensees) and 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 and the matter remains pending. 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. Under the current schedule set by the Court, fact discovery is scheduled to close 90 days after a Special Master completes his review of the plaintiffs’ objections to the defendants’ privilege claims. 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 February 4, 2025, following briefing on that motion, the Court heard arguments and took the motion under advisement. On February 20, 2025, the Special Master issued Report and Recommendation No. 3 addressing plaintiffs’ challenges to certain of defendants’ privilege log entries (“R&R No. 3”), which compelled disclosure of certain documents Sinclair and the other non-settling defendants withheld from discovery based on assertions of privilege. Sinclair and the other co-defendants filed objections to R&R No. 3 and appeared at a status conference on March 18, 2025 during which they argued in favor of their objections to R&R No. 3. The Court took the objections under advisement. At the March 18, 2025 status conference, the Court also set a tentative trial date of April 1, 2026 and stated its expectations that depositions will resume. Although a trial date has been tentatively set, the Court has not set a schedule for dispositive motions and other deadlines prior to trial, and the Special Master’s review of plaintiffs’ challenges to the defendants’ privilege claims remains ongoing. The Company continues to believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against all such claims. On July 19, 2023, as part of the bankruptcy proceedings of Diamond Sports Group, LLC (“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. As described under Note 3. Notes Payable, Finance Leases, and Commercial Bank Financing we have provided a guarantee that requires us to provide funding to the Marquee Sports Network (“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 believe we have no further obligations related to the guarantee, however, Marquee may not agree with our conclusion. This dispute may result in litigation, and based on our expectation of Marquee’s claims, we believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against such claims.
Sinclair Broadcast Group, LLC
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: Litigation, Claims, and Regulatory Matters SBG is 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, SBG does not believe the outcome of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on SBG’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 Order and 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 Order and 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). The Company filed an opposition to the petition on October 1, 2020. On January 18, 2024, a motion was filed to request substitution of the petitioner, who is deceased. On January 29, 2024, the Company filed (1) an opposition to the motion for substitution and (2) a motion to dismiss the petition to deny the renewal applications. An opposition was filed to the motion to dismiss on February 5, 2024, and the Company timely filed its reply on February 13, 2024, and the matter remains pending. Licensees are authorized to continue operating stations in accordance with their existing licenses while their renewal applications are pending before the FCC. On April 14, 2025, the same attorney who filed the earlier petition against WBFF(TV), on behalf of a different client, filed a similar petition to deny against applications by the Company seeking FCC consent to sell certain stations to a third party. The Company timely opposed the petition on April 24, 2025, the petitioner filed a reply on May 1, 2025, 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 enforcement remains pending. The Company is not a party to this forfeiture order; however, SBG’s consolidated financial statements include an accrual of additional expenses of $8 million for the above legal matters during the year ended December 31, 2021, as SBG consolidates these stations as VIEs. On September 21, 2022, the FCC released an NAL against the licensees of a number of stations, including 83 SBG stations and several stations with whom SBG 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 SBG, 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. As of March 31, 2025, SBG has accrued $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 denied the Company’s request for reduction of the fine (and similar requests filed by certain other licensees) and 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 and the matter remains pending. 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. Under the current schedule set by the Court, fact discovery is scheduled to close 90 days after a Special Master completes his review of the plaintiffs’ objections to the defendants’ privilege claims. 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 February 4, 2025, following briefing on that motion, the Court heard arguments and took the motion under advisement. On February 20, 2025, the Special Master issued Report and Recommendation No. 3 addressing plaintiffs’ challenges to certain of defendants’ privilege log entries (“R&R No. 3”), which compelled disclosure of certain documents Sinclair and the other non-settling defendants withheld from discovery based on assertions of privilege. Sinclair and the other co-defendants filed objections to R&R No. 3 and appeared at a status conference on March 18, 2025 during which they argued in favor of their objections to R&R No. 3. The Court took the objections under advisement. At the March 18, 2025 status conference, the Court also set a tentative trial date of April 1, 2026 and stated its expectations that depositions will resume. Although a trial date has been tentatively set, the Court has not set a schedule for dispositive motions and other deadlines prior to trial, and the Special Master’s review of plaintiffs’ challenges to the defendants’ privilege claims remains ongoing. The Company continues to believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves 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, SBG 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 Sinclair Ventures, LLC (“Ventures”). On January 2, 2025, DSG announced that it had emerged from bankruptcy, at which time, SBG’s equity interest in DSG was terminated. As described under Note 3. Notes Payable, Finance Leases, and Commercial Bank Financing, SBG has provided a guarantee that requires SBG to provide funding to the Marquee Sports Network (“Marquee”) under certain circumstances. On July 19, 2024, Marquee sent SBG 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 SBG by Marquee, Marquee has sufficient cash to make such payments without funding under the Marquee guarantee. For this and other reasons, SBG does not believe it is contractually required to provide funding under the Marquee guarantee at this time and has so informed Marquee. On August 2, 2024, Marquee sent SBG another letter claiming that SBG’s 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, SBG believes SBG has no further obligations related to the guarantee, however, Marquee may not agree with SBG’s conclusion. This dispute may result in litigation, and based on SBG’s expectation of Marquee’s claims, SBG believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against such claims.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2025

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 our 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 Order and 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 Order and 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). The Company filed an opposition to the petition on October 1, 2020. On January 18, 2024, a motion was filed to request substitution of the petitioner, who is deceased. On January 29, 2024, the Company filed (1) an opposition to the motion for substitution and (2) a motion to dismiss the petition to deny the renewal applications. An opposition was filed to the motion to dismiss on February 5, 2024, and the Company timely filed its reply on February 13, 2024, and the matter remains pending. Licensees are authorized to continue operating stations in accordance with their existing licenses while their renewal applications are pending before the FCC. On April 14, 2025, the same attorney who filed the earlier petition against WBFF(TV), on behalf of a different client, filed a similar petition to deny against applications by the Company seeking FCC consent to sell certain stations to a third party. The Company timely opposed the petition on April 24, 2025, the petitioner filed a reply on May 1, 2025, 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 enforcement remains pending. The Company is not a party to this forfeiture order; however, our consolidated financial statements include an accrual of additional expenses of $8 million for the above legal matters during the year ended December 31, 2021, as we consolidate these stations as VIEs.

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. As of March 31, 2025, we have accrued $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 denied the Company’s request for reduction of the fine (and similar requests filed by certain other licensees) and 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 and the matter remains pending.

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. Under the current schedule set by the Court, fact discovery is scheduled to close 90 days after a Special Master completes his review of the plaintiffs’ objections to the defendants’ privilege claims. 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 February 4, 2025, following briefing on that motion, the Court heard arguments and took the motion under advisement. On February 20, 2025, the Special Master issued Report and Recommendation No. 3 addressing plaintiffs’ challenges to certain of defendants’ privilege log entries (“R&R No. 3”), which compelled disclosure of certain documents Sinclair and the other non-settling defendants withheld from discovery based on assertions of privilege. Sinclair and the other co-defendants filed objections to R&R No. 3 and appeared at a status conference on March 18, 2025 during which they argued in favor of their objections to R&R No. 3. The Court took the objections under advisement. At the March 18, 2025 status conference, the Court also set a tentative trial date of April 1, 2026 and stated its expectations that depositions will resume. Although a trial date has been tentatively set, the Court has not set a schedule for dispositive motions and other deadlines prior to trial, and the Special Master’s review of plaintiffs’ challenges to the defendants’ privilege claims remains ongoing. The Company continues to believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against all such claims.

On July 19, 2023, as part of the bankruptcy proceedings of Diamond Sports Group, LLC (“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.

As described under Note 3. Notes Payable, Finance Leases, and Commercial Bank Financing we have provided a guarantee that requires us to provide funding to the Marquee Sports Network (“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 believe we have no further obligations related to the guarantee, however, Marquee may not agree with our conclusion. This dispute may result in litigation, and based on our expectation of Marquee’s claims, we believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against such claims.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, LLC

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Litigation, Claims, and Regulatory Matters

SBG is 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, SBG does not believe the outcome of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on SBG’s financial statements.

FCC Matters

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 enforcement remains pending. The Company is not a party to this forfeiture order; however, SBG’s consolidated financial statements include an accrual of additional expenses of $8 million for the above legal matters during the year ended December 31, 2021, as SBG consolidates these stations as VIEs.

On September 21, 2022, the FCC released an NAL against the licensees of a number of stations, including 83 SBG stations and several stations with whom SBG 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 SBG, 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. As of March 31, 2025, SBG has accrued $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 denied the Company’s request for reduction of the fine (and similar requests filed by certain other licensees) and 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 and the matter remains pending.

Other Matters

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.

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, SBG 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 Sinclair Ventures, LLC (“Ventures”). On January 2, 2025, DSG announced that it had emerged from bankruptcy, at which time, SBG’s equity interest in DSG was terminated.

As described under Note 3. Notes Payable, Finance Leases, and Commercial Bank Financing, SBG has provided a guarantee that requires SBG to provide funding to the Marquee Sports Network (“Marquee”) under certain circumstances. On July 19, 2024, Marquee sent SBG 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 SBG by Marquee, Marquee has sufficient cash to make such payments without funding under the Marquee guarantee. For this and other reasons, SBG does not believe it is contractually required to provide funding under the Marquee guarantee at this time and has so informed Marquee. On August 2, 2024, Marquee sent SBG another letter claiming that SBG’s 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, SBG believes SBG has no further obligations related to the guarantee, however, Marquee may not agree with SBG’s conclusion. This dispute may result in litigation, and based on SBG’s expectation of Marquee’s claims, SBG believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against such claims.