Prometheus I

The new rule enacted in 2003 partially repealed the cross-media ownership limitations, as the FCC found that the rule was no longer necessary in the public interest to maintain competition, diversity, or localism. However, it maintained some limited ownership controls through a diversity index based on the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index to determine if market consolidation was an issue.^[6]

The FCC's 2003 decision of the cross-media ownership limitations was challenged by several groups, with the primary legal challenge led by the Prometheus Radio Project, a non-profit advocacy group campaigning against media consolidation. The suit reached the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (or Prometheus I) that the FCC had not provided a reasonable rationale for its decision, specifically for how the diversity index was calculated with the inclusion of Internet coverage.^[5] The Third Circuit placed a stay on the new cross-media limit rules, and required the FCC to maintain the pre-2002 rules for cross-ownership.^[6][1]

Prometheus II

The FCC's next required review under the Telecommunications Act came in 2006, which included reassessing the Third Circuit's Prometheus I decision alongside commissioned studies on the state and impact of changing the cross-ownership rules. The FCC said it issued new rules in 2008, primarily limiting owners of newspapers to owning one television or one radio station in the top twenty urban markets. The rules also created a new class of minority-owned broadcasters, which had been suggested from the Prometheus I decision as to assure there would be viewpoint diversity.^[5]

The new rules were again challenged by the Prometheus Radio Project, which the Third Circuit heard in 2011 as Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus II). The Third Circuit ruled to maintain the stay on the new rules, stating that the FCC still had not shown good justification for the new cross-ownership rules and minority ownership concerns that the court had previously raised. The court did reassert that there was a substantial state interest in promoting diversity.^[5]

Prometheus III

With the ongoing action in Prometheus II, the FCC failed to complete its 2010 or 2014 review, and what efforts had been performed had not followed on the cross-media ownership aspects. The lack of inaction on these matters led to a third suit, Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus III) in 2016 in the Third Circuit. The court ordered the FCC to complete the 2010 and 2014 reviews and issue a new proposed cross-media ownership rule by the end of 2016, since there was a compelling drive to replace the 1975 rule and the FCC's delay was hampering the process.^[5] By August 2016, the FCC issued its new rules that for all purposes left the 1975 rule in place with small modifications, such as for a failing newspaper to receive investments from a local television or radio station.^[7]

Prometheus IV

The new rules were seen as inaction by many media companies, which had been losing revenue over the previous years, and a fourth iteration of Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus IV) began in the courts. While the case was under litigation, newly elected Donald Trump replaced the FCC chairmen with Ajit Pai, who led the FCC to release two new orders related to media ownership in 2017 and 2018. The 2017 orders overrode parts of the 2016 rules and essentially eliminated the cross-ownership restrictions from 1975, while the 2018 order addressed minority ownership to allow larger companies to incubate minority-owned stations as to meet diversity goals. Both orders were challenged, and the cases consolidated into the ongoing Prometheus IV case at the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit ruled in September 2019 that the FCC still had not "adequately considered the effects" of the new rules on "diversity in broadcast media ownership," vacating both the 2017 and 2018 rules.^[8] The Third Circuit criticized the FCC's proposed orders for failing to consider gender or social disadvantage diversity alongside racial diversity as part of its incubator program or in relaxing the ownership rules. The decision left parts of the 2016 rules but otherwise returned media ownership back to the 1975 restrictions.^[9]