Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: NewsGuard asks FTC to quash May 2025 Civil Investigative Demand, (Jan 23, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

NewsGuard alleged the Trump Administration has targeted NewsGuard for oppressive and unfounded regulatory action in retaliation for its First Amendment activities.

NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. (NewsGuard), a news reliability ratings provider, has petitioned the FTC to quash a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) dated May 20, 2025. The CID in question is similar to one the FTC simultaneously issued against MediaMatters, which the federal district court in Washington, D.C., preliminarily enjoined on August 15, 2025. Tracking the arguments Media Matters made in its district court case, NewsGuard accused the FTC of a campaign of retaliation and of violating NewsGuard’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment. NewsGuard contended the instant FTC investigation “followed the exact same timeline” the district court found troubling in Media Matters (In the Matter of the Civil Investigative Demand dated May 20, 2025, to NewsGuard Technologies, Inc., No. 251-0061 (FTC Jan. 16, 2026)).

NewsGuard ratings. NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. (NewsGuard), founded in 2018, holds itself out as a nonpartisan media organization that uses “apolitical journalistic criteria” to rate the reliability of online news sources. It says its guiding principle has always been that government entities, “unaccountable” Silicon Valley -generated algorithms, and partisan advocacy groups have no business deciding what news people consume. Advertisers use its reliability ratings to make “informed decisions” about website advertising placements. Subscribers use NewsGuard to “evaluate the accuracy of the information they encounter online.” A team of “journalistically trained analysts” create the purported reliability ratings.

“Baseless criticism.” NewsGuard says it has faced “baseless criticism” for years that it its biased against conservatives and “censors” conservative speech. NewsGuard said it has faced similar bias claims from “the opposite side of the aisle,” for example, a defamation suit by the “left-wing” Consortium News website.

Alleged retaliation. According to NewsGuard, a misconception of bias against conservatives has manifested in congressional hearings and the instant FTC CID under FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, a longtime “vocal critic of NewsGuard.” NewsGuard said Chair Ferguson, even before he became Chair, promoted an “ideologically motivated effort to censor and discriminate against NewsGuard based on the content of its journalism by urging an FTC investigation.” NewsGuard cited similar criticism by Federal Communications Commission Brendan Carr, who “described NewsGuard as ‘Orwellian.’” NewsGuard said Chair Ferguson’s statements “expressly singling out NewsGuard as a potential target for FTC investigation” are “probative” of retaliation.

Compliance efforts. NewsGuard claimed it has worked constructively with FTC staff who have “refused to provide assurance that NewsGuard has fully complied with the CID” and have continued to “insist on additional document productions.” NewsGuard contended the demands are unconstitutional and disregard NewsGuard’s “meaningful compliance.”

Production objections. NewsGuard objected to productions encompassing:

• identities of NewsGuard’s customers;

• communications with customers;

• identities of all entities to which NewsGuard has ever assigned a News Reliability Rating;

• ratings assigned to those entities over time;

• documents revealing the NewsGuard methodology for determining reliability ratings, including “internal correspondence about the process”;

• financial statements and other financial performance information “broken down by specific NewsGuard products and services”.

Among other things, it said the demand for financial statements does not square with the stated reason behind the investigation. NewsGuard suggested the scope of the CID shows “pretext” which should be “fatal” to FTC counterarguments about causation.

Constitutional objections. NewsGuard said the FTC should quash the CID because, as in Media Matters, it “presents a straightforward First Amendment violation.” Media Matters for Am. v. FTC, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 2378009, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2025).

NewsGuard continued that the putative FTC retaliatory action has been sufficient to deter future speech. As in Media Matters, the fact that the CID is enforceable in federal court underscores deterrent effect, including the specter of additional legal expenses. NewsGuard suggested the CID has raised legal outlays to 28% of its advertising brand-safety service revenue. NewsGuard also faulted the CID for targeting information protected by NewsGuard’s First Amendment associational rights through requests for information identifying NewsGuard’s customers. NewsGuard urged that the FTC cannot possibly meet the demanding constitutional requirements for compelling disclosure of NewsGuard’s customer lists.

Beyond those concerns, NewsGuard argued the CID makes “overbroad demands and impermissible requests” for subscriber identities, customer communications, and internal deliberative materials that violate the First and Fourth Amendment restrictions on administrative subpoenas.

Omnicom matter. NewsGuard argued further that the “FTC’s retaliatory campaign” has “not stopped with the CID.” NewsGuard pointed to the FTC consent order with Omnicom Group, Inc. and The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. It said that consent order “effectively prohibits Omnicom from using NewsGuard’s services.”

When viewed together with the CID, FTC use of coercive power to prevent Omnicom from doing business with NewsGuard is not only “unconstitutional on its own terms” but “leaves no doubt that the FTC has embarked on an unconstitutional campaign of retaliation against NewsGuard.”

Media matters injunction. On August 15, 2025, the federal district court in Washington, D.C. preliminarily enjoined a similar FTC Civil Investigative Demand (CID) served on Media Matters for America (Media Matters for America v. FTC, No. 25-5302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2025)). The district court saw that CID as likely “retaliatory” in nature and in violation of Media Matters’ rights under the First Amendment. On August 22, 2025, the district court declined to stay the preliminary injunction, and the FTC appealed, seeking a stay.

On appeal, a panel majority of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held the FTC did not show that the district court clearly erred in deciding to preliminarily enjoin the Media Matters CID. The majority also denied the FTC request for an emergent stay pending appeal. The Media Matters preliminary injunction followed two others the district court previously entered to stop Missouri and Texas CIDs.

The case is No. 251-0061.

Attorneys: for Sophia A. Hansell (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP) for NewsGuard Technologies, Inc.

Companies: NewsGuard Technologies, Inc.

News: Antitrust Advertising ConsumerProtection FederalTradeCommissionNews