Other matters	9 Months Ended
Other matters	Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Other matters	Other matters Litigation In the third quarter of 2018, certain national media outlets reported the existence of a confidential investigation by the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) into the local television advertising sales practices of station owners. We received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) in connection with the DOJ’s investigation. On November 13 and December 13, 2018, the DOJ and seven other broadcasters settled a DOJ complaint alleging the exchange of competitively sensitive information in the broadcast television industry. In June 2019, we and four other broadcasters entered into a substantially identical agreement with DOJ, which was entered by the court on December 3, 2019. The settlement contains no finding of wrongdoing or liability and carries no penalty. It prohibits us and the other settling entities from sharing certain confidential business information, or using such information pertaining to other broadcasters, except under limited circumstances. The settlement also requires the settling parties to make certain enhancements to their antitrust compliance programs, to continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation, and to permit DOJ to verify compliance. The costs of compliance have not been material, nor do we expect future compliance costs to be material. Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions. Plaintiffs are a class consisting of all persons and entities in the United States who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local television provided by the defendants. The Advertising Cases assert antitrust and other claims and seek monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against the allegedly wrongful conduct. These cases have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et. al., filed on July 30, 2018. At the court’s direction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2019, that superseded the original complaints. Although we were named as a defendant in sixteen of the original complaints, the amended complaint did not name TEGNA as a defendant. After TEGNA and four other broadcasters entered into consent decrees with the DOJ in June 2019, the plaintiffs sought leave from the court to further amend the complaint to add TEGNA and the other settling broadcasters to the proceeding. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, and the plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on September 9, 2019. On October 8, 2019, the defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the matter. On November 6, 2020, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On March 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which, among other things, added ShareBuilders, Inc., as a named defendant. ShareBuilders filed a motion to dismiss on April 15, 2022, which was granted by the court without prejudice on August 29, 2022. TEGNA has filed its answer to the third amended complaint denying any violation of law and asserting various affirmation defenses. We believe that the claims asserted in the Advertising Cases are without merit, and intend to defend ourselves vigorously against them. Litigation Relating to the Merger As of November 9, 2022, seven lawsuits have been filed by purported TEGNA stockholders in connection with the Merger. The lawsuits have been filed against TEGNA and the current members of the Board of Directors of TEGNA (the Board of Directors). The complaints generally allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed by TEGNA with the SEC on March 25, 2022 in connection with the Merger contained alleged material misstatements and/or omissions in violation of federal law. Plaintiffs in the complaints generally seek, among other things, to enjoin TEGNA from consummating the Merger, or in the alternative, rescission of the Merger and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorneys’ fees. As of November 9, 2022, all but one of those lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed. In addition, as of November 9, 2022, TEGNA received four demand letters from purported TEGNA shareholders in connection with TEGNA’s filing of a definitive proxy statement with the SEC on April 13, 2022 relating to the Merger (the “definitive proxy statement”). Each letter alleged deficiencies in the definitive proxy statement that were similar to the deficiencies alleged in the complaints referenced above. We believe that the claims asserted in the complaints and letters described above are without merit and no additional disclosures were or are required under applicable law. However, to moot the unmeritorious disclosure claims, to avoid the risks of the actions described above delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, TEGNA voluntarily made supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy statement as described in the Form 8-K filed by TEGNA with the SEC on May 9, 2022. Additional lawsuits arising out of the Merger may also be filed in the future. We, along with a number of our subsidiaries, also are defendants in other judicial and administrative proceedings involving matters incidental to our business. We do not believe that any material liability will be imposed as a result of any of the foregoing matters. Related Party Transactions We have an equity investment in MadHive which is a related party of TEGNA. In addition to our investment, we also have a commercial agreement with MadHive, under which MadHive supports our Premion business in acquiring over-the-top advertising inventory and delivering corresponding advertising impressions. In the third quarter and first nine months of 2022, we incurred expenses of $30.4 million and $86.3 million, respectively, as a result of the commercial agreement with MadHive. In the third quarter and first nine months of 2021, we incurred expenses of $19.7 million and $62.1 million, respectively, as a result of the commercial agreement with MadHive. As of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021 we had accounts payable and accrued liabilities associated with the MadHive commercial agreements of $19.4 million and $8.9 million, respectively. In December 2021, we renewed our two existing commercial agreements with MadHive. Simultaneously with the commercial agreement renewals, we also amended the terms of our then outstanding available-for-sale convertible debt security that we held as discussed in Note 3. In exchange for the convertible debt modifications, we received favorable terms in our renewed commercial agreements. We estimated the fair value of our available-for-sale security at December 31, 2021 using a market fair value approach based on the cash we expect to receive upon maturity of the note and the estimated cash savings that the favorable contract terms will provide over the term of the commercial agreements. In January 2022, we recorded an intangible contract asset for $20.8 million (equal to the estimated cash savings), and are amortizing this asset on a straight-line basis over the noncancellable term of the commercial agreements of two years. This non-cash expense is recorded within “Cost of revenues,” within our Consolidated Statement of Income. The debt matured in June 2022 at which time the principal balance of $3.0 million plus accrued interest was paid to us.