Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Royalty Agreements We must pay royalties to song composers and publishers whenever we broadcast copyrighted musical compositions in accordance with U.S. copyright law. Such copyright owners of musical compositions most often rely on intermediaries known as performing rights organizations ("PROs") to negotiate licenses with copyright users for the public performance of their compositions, collect royalties under such licenses and distribute them to copyright owners. We have obtained public performance licenses from, and pay license fees to, the four major PROs in the U.S., which include the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers ("ASCAP") and Broadcast Music, Inc. ("BMI"). On August 19, 2025, the Radio Music Licensing Committee (“RMLC”), of which the Company is a represented participant, announced (as did each of ASCAP and BMI, respectively) that RMLC had entered into separate settlement agreements with each of ASCAP and BMI to resolve rate-setting proceedings pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The settlements establish final license fee rates which apply retroactively for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2029. During the third quarter of 2025, the Company accrued an aggregate of $8.0 million related to the ASCAP and BMI settlements in the Corporate expenses financial statement line item of the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. As of June 30, 2026, an aggregate accrual of $3.9 million was recorded in Liabilities Subject to Compromise on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Legal Proceedings We have been, and expect in the future to be, a party to various legal proceedings, investigations or claims. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, we record accruals for certain of our outstanding legal proceedings when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in our legal proceedings or other claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, we do not record a loss accrual. If the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is reasonably possible and material, we disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of judgments about future events, which are often complex. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, we may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties, or (iv) various factors outside of our control could lead to vastly different outcomes. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss. The Company currently is, and expects that from time to time in the future it will be, party to, or a defendant in, various other claims or lawsuits that are generally incidental to its business. The Company expects that it will vigorously contest any such claims or lawsuits and believes that the ultimate resolution of any such known claim or lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Chapter 11 Cases See "Note 1, Nature of Business, Interim Financial Data and Basis of Presentation," for additional information about the Plan and the Chapter 11 Cases. Nielsen Litigation On October 16, 2025, Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. filed a complaint against The Nielsen Company (US) LLC (“Nielsen”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) (Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-08581) asserting claims for illegal monopolization under federal and state antitrust laws (the “Complaint”). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Nielsen has engaged in anticompetitive conduct by conditioning access to its national radio ratings data on the mandatory purchase of local market ratings data in every market where we own stations (the “Tying Policy”). The Complaint seeks monetary relief in the form of treble damages, injunctive relief prohibiting Nielsen from continued antitrust violations, and declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that Nielsen’s Tying Policy is unlawful and anticompetitive. On December 30, 2025, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined Nielsen from, among other things, enforcing its Tying Policy during the pendency of the case (the “Preliminary Injunction Ruling”). Nielsen appealed the District Court’s Preliminary Injunction Ruling on January 14, 2026, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”), and, on January 16, 2026, the Second Circuit administratively stayed the District Court’s Preliminary Injunction Ruling pending the appeal. On February 2, 2026, Nielsen answered the Complaint and asserted three counterclaims against the Company, alleging, among other things, that (i) the Company breached its services agreement with Nielsen (the “Services Agreement”) by providing Nielsen’s ratings to an unauthorized third party, (ii) the Company engaged in and facilitated unfair competition by providing Nielsen’s ratings to a competitor, and (iii) an actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties regarding whether the Company breached the Services Agreement (collectively, the “Counterclaims”). Nielsen’s Counterclaims seek monetary relief in the form of actual damages (including direct, indirect, and consequential damages, plus applicable interest), declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that the Company breached the Services Agreement, and injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from sharing Nielsen data with unauthorized parties. On March 11, 2026, in light of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases, the District Court stayed the Company's claims against Nielsen until further order of the District Court, and stayed Nielsen’s Counterclaims until the earlier of (i) the termination of the automatic stay in bankruptcy, or (ii) entry of an order by the Bankruptcy Court lifting the stay of Nielsen’s counterclaims. On July 13, 2026, the Second Circuit (Appeal No. 26-88) affirmed the District Court’s Preliminary Injunction Ruling. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

We must pay royalties to song composers and publishers whenever we broadcast copyrighted musical compositions in accordance with U.S. copyright law. Such copyright owners of musical compositions most often rely on intermediaries known as performing rights organizations ("PROs") to negotiate licenses with copyright users for the public performance of their compositions, collect royalties under such licenses and distribute them to copyright owners. We have obtained public performance licenses from, and pay license fees to, the four major PROs in the U.S., which include the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers ("ASCAP") and Broadcast Music, Inc. ("BMI").

On August 19, 2025, the Radio Music Licensing Committee (“RMLC”), of which the Company is a represented participant, announced (as did each of ASCAP and BMI, respectively) that RMLC had entered into separate settlement agreements with each of ASCAP and BMI to resolve rate-setting proceedings pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The settlements establish final license fee rates which apply retroactively for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2029.

During the third quarter of 2025, the Company accrued an aggregate of $8.0 million related to the ASCAP and BMI settlements in the Corporate expenses financial statement line item of the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. As of June 30, 2026, an aggregate accrual of $3.9 million was recorded in Liabilities Subject to Compromise on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

We have been, and expect in the future to be, a party to various legal proceedings, investigations or claims. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, we record accruals for certain of our outstanding legal proceedings when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in our legal proceedings or other claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, we do not record a loss accrual.

If the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is reasonably possible and material, we disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of judgments about future events, which are often complex. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, we may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties, or (iv) various factors outside of our control could lead to vastly different outcomes. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss.

The Company currently is, and expects that from time to time in the future it will be, party to, or a defendant in, various other claims or lawsuits that are generally incidental to its business. The Company expects that it will vigorously contest any such claims or lawsuits and believes that the ultimate resolution of any such known claim or lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On October 16, 2025, Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. filed a complaint against The Nielsen Company (US) LLC (“Nielsen”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) (Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-08581) asserting claims for illegal monopolization under federal and state antitrust laws (the “Complaint”). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Nielsen has engaged in anticompetitive conduct by conditioning access to its national radio ratings data on the mandatory purchase of local market ratings data in every market where we own stations (the “Tying Policy”). The Complaint seeks monetary relief in the form of treble damages, injunctive relief prohibiting Nielsen from continued antitrust violations, and declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that Nielsen’s Tying Policy is unlawful and anticompetitive.

On December 30, 2025, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined Nielsen from, among other things, enforcing its Tying Policy during the pendency of the case (the “Preliminary Injunction Ruling”). Nielsen appealed the District Court’s Preliminary Injunction Ruling on January 14, 2026, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”), and, on January 16, 2026, the Second Circuit administratively stayed the District Court’s Preliminary Injunction Ruling pending the appeal.

On February 2, 2026, Nielsen answered the Complaint and asserted three counterclaims against the Company, alleging, among other things, that (i) the Company breached its services agreement with Nielsen (the “Services Agreement”) by providing Nielsen’s ratings to an unauthorized third party, (ii) the Company engaged in and facilitated unfair competition by providing Nielsen’s ratings to a competitor, and (iii) an actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties regarding whether the Company breached the Services Agreement (collectively, the “Counterclaims”). Nielsen’s Counterclaims seek monetary relief in the form of actual damages (including direct, indirect, and consequential damages, plus applicable interest), declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that the Company breached the Services Agreement, and injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from sharing Nielsen data with unauthorized parties.

On March 11, 2026, in light of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases, the District Court stayed the Company's claims against Nielsen until further order of the District Court, and stayed Nielsen’s Counterclaims until the earlier of (i) the termination of the automatic stay in bankruptcy, or (ii) entry of an order by the Bankruptcy Court lifting the stay of Nielsen’s counterclaims.

On July 13, 2026, the Second Circuit (Appeal No. 26-88) affirmed the District Court’s Preliminary Injunction Ruling. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.