Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-03235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nielsen Consumer LLC v. The NPD Group, Inc., Judge Oetken denied an injunction blocking the merger, subject to NPD’s court-ordered commitments.
Nielsen Consumer LLC, doing business as NielsenIQ, and The NPD Group, Inc.; the order also concerns NPD’s anticipated merger with Information Resources, Inc. and NPD’s handling of certain licensed data and confidential information.
What happened
In Nielsen Consumer LLC v. The NPD Group, Inc., NielsenIQ asked the court to temporarily block NPD’s anticipated merger with Information Resources, Inc. NielsenIQ sought protections concerning exclusively licensed data and confidential information.
The court found that NielsenIQ was not likely to suffer harm that could not be repaired without blocking the merger. It also found that the competing hardships did not justify stopping the merger because a narrower remedy was available.
Judge Oetken denied NielsenIQ’s motion to the extent it sought to block the merger. The denial was conditioned on NPD complying with commitments listed in a separate docket filing, which the court made part of its order during the litigation or until further court order.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- May 18, 2022
Background
Nielsen Consumer LLC, doing business as NielsenIQ, moved for a preliminary injunction against The NPD Group, Inc. NielsenIQ sought to prevent NPD from completing an anticipated merger with Information Resources, Inc., unless NPD provided assurances and protections concerning certain exclusively licensed data and confidential information. The court heard oral argument on May 17, 2022.
Legal standard
A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order intended to preserve a party’s position while litigation continues. The court stated that the moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation, likely irreparable harm, inadequate monetary remedies, a balance of hardships favoring equitable relief, and consistency with the public interest. Any injunction must be narrowly tailored to address the specific legal violation without unnecessarily burdening lawful commercial activity.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court concluded that blocking the anticipated merger was unwarranted in light of NPD’s assurances. Specifically, it found that NielsenIQ was not likely to suffer irreparable injury without an injunction against the merger and that the balance of hardships did not justify blocking the merger because a more tailored remedy was available.
Accordingly, the court DENIED NielsenIQ’s motion to the extent it sought to enjoin the merger, provided that NPD complied with the commitments set forth at Docket No. 34-4. The court incorporated those commitments into the order and required compliance during the pendency of the litigation or until further order. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 11 and 17.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.