Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice purporting to remind broadcasters about their lowest unit charge (LUC) obligations for political ads.  LUC requirements apply to ads sponsored by legally qualified candidates and their authorized committees.  In the Public Notice, the Bureau said for the first time that the LUC obligation extends to joint fundraising committees made up of a federal candidate’s principal campaign committee and other political committees.  The Notice also said that the obligation extends to “coordinated expenditures” between political parties and legally qualified federal candidates.  The determination that coordinated expenditures qualify for LUC contradicted a statement from the Solicitor General on behalf of the Department of Justice in a brief filed in February with the Supreme Court in a case that, if decided as urged by certain Republican party groups, could dramatically expand the ability of political parties to coordinate their spending with legally qualified federal candidates.  The FCC’s rules require that stations provide LUC in the 45 days before a primary election and in the 60 days before a general election. 
  • Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) sent FCC Chairman Carr a letter expressing their concerns about the FCC delegating to the Media Bureau the approval of the Nexstar’s acquisition of TEGNA (see our article here).  The Senators stated that the merger’s size – which created the largest TV station group in history – and the decisions to waive the local and national TV ownership rules, required a vote of the full Commission.  The Senators asked what mergers would require full Commission review if the approval of the novel issues involved in this decision could be delegated to the Media Bureau.  The Senators noted that Carr previously disagreed with the FCC’s delegation of authority to the Media Bureau to designate the proposed Standard General-TEGNA merger for hearing in 2023, which killed that deal (see our article here), and the Media Bureau’s approval of Audacy’s bankruptcy plan in 2024 (see our note here).  The Senators requested that Carr provide information on the decision to allow the Bureau to approve the Nexstar-TEGNA deal and how this situation differed from prior FCC delegations of authority which Carr opposed.
  • A Federal District Court enjoined the integration of TEGNA into Nexstar while it considered antitrust arguments raised by 8 state attorneys general arguing that the acquisition resulted in Nexstar acquiring too much market power.  Nexstar has argued against the continuation of the temporary restraining order claiming that it cannot operate TEGNA as a separate company given that it already closed its acquisition after that acquisition was approved by the FCC and the Department of Justice. 
  • A federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled that President Trump’s Executive Order forbidding federal agencies from providing any funding to NPR and PBS violated NPR and PBS’ First Amendment rights.  The judge found that the administration cannot deny funding to NPR and PBS simply because it disagrees with their viewpoints – which the EO characterized as “left-wing propaganda” – because such an action violates the First Amendment.  While the decision has been characterized in some headlines as restoring funding to NPR and PBS, because Congress eliminated that funding separate and apart from the EO, the real effect of this decision is limited to situations where government agencies may want to provide grants or other funding to these organizations out of funds other than those rejected by Congress.
  • The Media Bureau granted the assignment of a TV station in the Jacksonville, FL Nielsen Designated Market Area (DMA) from Hoffman Communications to Cox Television, resulting in Cox owning two of the top-4 TV stations in the DMA.  As was the case last month when the Bureau approved Sinclair acquiring two of the top-4 ranked TV stations in multiple DMAs (see our notes here and here), the Bureau rejected claims by DIRECTV that Cox had to make a showing that the public interest justified the transaction.  The Bureau found that, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the top-4 restrictions (see our article here), no special showing was needed and that any arguments about other harms from the assignment, including increased retransmission consent fees, were speculative.
  • The FCC released a Forfeiture Order imposing a $60,000 fine against an individual for operating a pirate radio station in Miami Gardens, Florida.  The pirate broadcaster now has 30 days to pay the fine or the FCC may refer the case to the U.S. Department of Justice.  The FCC itself cannot sue to collect fines or take actions against individuals who ignore these fines so it must rely on the DOJ to enforce them in Court.
  • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Mississippi AM station to resolve an investigation arising from an informal complaint, finding violations including that the station’s control changed without prior FCC approval when one of its three owners bought out the interests of the other two, the station failed to upload Quarterly Issues/Programs lists to its Online Public Inspection File (OPIF), the station failed to file several biennial ownership reports, and the station falsely certified its compliance with its OPIF and biennial ownership reporting requirements in its license renewal application.  The Consent Decree requires that the station pay a $1,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury and implement a compliance plan to ensure future compliance with the FCC’s rules. 

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • Judicial appeals of the FCC’s Media Bureau approval of the transfer of control of TEGNA to Nexstar have been filed by representatives of conservative media outlets, public interest groups, multichannel video providers, and others.  The appeals make arguments including that the full Commission, not the Media Bureau, should have made the decision, and questioning whether the Bureau (or the Commission) has the authority to waive the 39% audience cap, as the cap was set by Congress.  Petitions to stay the effect of the FCC’s order have also been filed.  Nexstar has opposed these motions.  We wrote more about the significance of the Nexstar decision on our Broadcast Law Blog.
    • Commissioner Gomez objected to the refusal of the Media Bureau to attach her dissent to its approval of Nexstar’s acquisition of TEGNA.  A Commissioner would normally not dissent to a Media Bureau decision – Commissioners would weigh in when the Bureau decision is appealed to the full Commission.  Gomez argues that her dissent should be considered now so it can be reviewed in any court challenge to the decision as the Commissioners may never get to vote on any appeal and that the Bureau decision in this case has the same practical effect as a full Commission decision.
  • The FCC released two decisions as part of its Delete Delete Delete proceeding looking to abolish unnecessary rules and lighten the regulatory burden on broadcasters:
    • The FCC released a Report and Order updating and clarifying several broadcast rules, including conforming rules to current licensing systems (including replacing outdated CDBS application form references with those currently used in LMS); eliminating outdated and obsolete requirements (including post-incentive auction digital transition notification requirements, deleting the rule requiring a 20% increase in AM station power for processing a power increase application, and the rule restricting Special Temporary Authorizations for technical and equipment problems to 90 days when other STAs can be granted for up to 180 days); modifying its application signatory rules to allow corporate directors and duly authorized employees of corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations, or government entities to certify applications; and revising several broadcast rules for clarity (including clarifying when stations’ local public notice obligations are triggered for their applications).  The rule changes will generally become effective 30 days after the item’s publication in the Federal Register.
    • The FCC also released a Direct Final Rule in which it deleted several of its rules as being unnecessary, including rules for the TV broadcast spectrum reverse auction which ended in 2017.  Comments responding to the Direct Final Rule are due 20 days after the item’s publication in the Federal Register.  As we noted here, the Direct Final Rule process allows the FCC to delete a rule without prior public comment, but allows for a 10- to 20-day comment period after the item’s publication in the Federal Register.  If substantive negative comments are filed against the deletions, the FCC will implement regular notice and comment procedures before the deletions take effect.
  • The Media Bureau granted applications proposing the assignment of Allen Media’s TV stations in Lafayette, Indiana, Terre Haute, Indiana, and Tupelo, Mississippi to Gray Television, resulting in Gray owning its first full-power TV stations in each of those markets.  Several cable and satellite associations and other groups filed objections against the applications.  The Media Bureau rejected the arguments, finding that the applications complied with the FCC rules and that there were no public interest harms caused by granting the applications. 
  • FCC Chairman Carr responded to Senator Blumenthal’s (D-CT) letter requesting information on the FCC’s recent investigation and alleged threats against broadcasters regarding violations of the equal time rule for political candidates, including in connection with the appearance of Texas U.S. candidate James Talarico on the ABC’s “The View” and CBS’ decision to block the broadcast of Talarico’s interview on Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show” (see our notes here and here).  Carr stated that the FCC’s alleged threats against broadcast networks not to air the Talarico interviews were “based on news stories that have proven to be nothing more than a series of hoaxes,” and that the Senator’s “letter repeats the false claim that the FCC censored a recent interview that a late-night TV host wanted to conduct with a legally qualified candidate for political office.”  Carr stated that TV stations are not prohibited from conducting interviews with political candidates in non-news programs but if they conduct interviews outside of exempt programs they must comply with the equal time rule. 
  • The Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director issued an Order to Pay or to Show Cause against the licensee of several current and former Texas FM stations and an LPTV station proposing to revoke its current station’s license unless, within 60 days, the licensee pays its delinquent regulatory fees and interest, administrative costs, and penalties, or shows that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred.  The licensee has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $18,499.29 for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 for both its currently and formerly licensed stations.  
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued Notices of Violation against two broadcasters for violations of Commission rules on the lighting and marking of towers.  The Bureau issued a Notice of Violation against a New Jersey AM station after an inspection revealed violations including its towers not being properly painted and their lighting was not operating properly, the station failed to renew its Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) of the tower lightning outage after the Notice had expired, vegetation around the towers precluded access to the base of the tower, and the station did not maintain operational Emergency Alert Service equipment.  The Bureau also issued a Notice of Violation against a Texas broadcaster after an inspection of its tower revealed that the tower’s paint was not properly being maintained.  The broadcasters must now explain to the Bureau how they will correct their rule violations and prevent future violations from occurring.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we looked at upcoming regulatory dates and deadlines affecting broadcasters this April.  Additionally, with April Fools’ Day right around the corner, we wrote about legal issues that can arise from on-air pranks under the FCC’s Hoax rule and even that suck pranks can give rise to civil liability.

With April showers come routine regulatory dates for broadcasters, including the requirement for posting Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists to the Online Public Inspection Files of all full-power radio and TV stations, and EEO Public File Reports for stations in a number of states.  Among the other dates in April is the reply comment deadline in the FCC’s inquiry on the sports broadcasting marketplace.  We also note lowest unit rate windows that open this month.  So here is a look at some of the most significant dates and deadlines for broadcasters in April. 

April 1 is the deadline for radio and television station employment units in Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas with five or more full-time employees to upload their Annual EEO Public File Report to their stations’ Online Public Inspection Files (OPIFs).  A station employment unit is a station or cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same general geographic area with at least one common employee.  For employment units with five or more full-time employees, the annual report covers hiring and employment outreach activities for the prior year.  A link to the uploaded report must also be included on the home page of each station’s website, if the station has a website.  Be timely getting these reports into your station’s OPIF, as even a single late report can lead to FCC fines (see our article here about a $26,000 fine for a single late EEO report).

The filing of the Annual EEO Public File Reports by radio station employment units with eleven more full-time employees or TV station employment units with five or more employees triggers a Mid-Term EEO Review that analyzes the last two Annual Reports for compliance with the FCC’s EEO requirements.  The Mid-Term EEO Review begins April 1 for these larger radio station employment units in Delaware and Pennsylvania.  TV station employment units in Texas are also subject to this review.  Additionally, radio stations located in Delaware and Pennsylvania that are part of station employment units with five or more full-time employees must also indicate in their OPIFs whether their employment unit has eleven more full-time employees, using a checkbox now included in the EEO folder of each station’s OPIF.  This allows the FCC to determine which station groups need a Mid-Term EEO Review.  See our articles here and here on radio stations’ Mid-Term EEO Review reporting requirements.

April 10 is the deadline for all full power and Class A television stations and commercial and noncommercial full power AM and FM radio stations to upload their Quarterly Issues/Program lists for the first quarter of 2026 to their OPIFs.  The lists should identify the issues of importance to the station’s community and the programs that the station aired between January 1 and March 31, 2026, that addressed those issues.  These lists must be timely uploaded to your station’s OPIF, as the untimely uploads of these documents probably have resulted in more fines in the last decade than for any other FCC rule violation.  As you finalize your lists, do so carefully and accurately, as they are the only official records of how your station is serving the public and addressing the needs and interests of its community.  See our article here for more on the importance of the Quarterly Issues/Programs list obligation.

April 10 is also the deadline for certain stations to upload to their online public file any of the following information from the period from January 1 to March 31, 2026, if a station has any such information:

  • documentation from noncommercial educational stations not affiliated with NPR or CPB of any on-air fundraising benefitting third parties that interrupted their normal programming (see our article here for a further explanation of this requirement),
  • documentation by Class A television of their continuing eligibility for Class A status, and
  • documentation from full power television, Class A television, and full power radio stations of any programming time that was leased by a foreign government or an agent of a foreign government or provided by a foreign entity for free in exchange for its airing (see our articles here and here for more information).

April 11 is the deadline for all U.S.-based foreign media outlets which would be classified as “an agent of a foreign government” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act to notify the FCC of their relationship to, and whether the outlet receives any funding from, a foreign government or political party.  This requirement applies to companies providing video programming to cable and satellite television systems.  The FCC must report to Congress every six months on the operations of these U.S.-based foreign media outlets.

April 13 is the deadline for reply comments responding to the FCC Media Bureau’s Public Notice concerning the status of the sports broadcasting marketplace.  The Bureau seeks comments on the impact of sports programming marketplace changes on consumers and broadcasters, whether sports media contracts impact broadcasters’ ability to meet their public interest obligations, streaming platforms’ impact on broadcasters’ ability to obtain sports programming rights, specifics of agreements for the rights to cover sports, and the authority of the FCC to ensure continued viewer access to live sports.  See our article here for more on the Bureau’s request for comments.

Broadcasters located in Alabama, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee should also be aware of the opening of political windows tied to state and local elections occurring in April, May, and June 2026—meaning that Lowest Unit Rates apply to sales to candidates and their authorized committees.  As noted in our last two monthly updates (here and here), there are already LUR windows open in a number of states for elections in April and May. See our article here on the basics of computing LUR.  The windows opening in April are set out below:

STATE/ TERRITORYLUR DATEELECTION DATEELECTION TYPE
LouisianaApril 1, 2026May 16, 2026Municipal and Party Primary Elections
DelawareApril 3, 2026June 2, 2026Municipal Election (Bellafonte)
MississippiApril 3, 2026June 2, 2026Mississippi Levee Board General Election
TennesseeApril 3, 2026June 2, 2026Municipal Election (Livingston)
AlabamaApril 4, 2026May 19, 2026General Primary Elections
GeorgiaApril 4, 2026May 19, 2026General Primary Elections
IdahoApril 4, 2026May 19, 2026General Primary Elections
KentuckyApril 4, 2026May 19, 2026General Primary Elections
OregonApril 4, 2026May 19, 2026General Primary Elections
PennsylvaniaApril 4, 2026May 19, 2026General Primary Elections
TennesseeApril 5, 2026June 4, 2026Municipal Election (Parsons)
FloridaApril 8, 2026April 21, 2026Runoff Election (Municipal Election on April 7, 2026: Frostproof)
April 8, 2026May 5, 2026Runoff Elections (Municipal Elections on April 7, 2026: Bartow, Davenport, Dundee, Haines City, Lake Hamilton, and Mulberry)
April 8, 2026May 26, 2026Runoff Election (Municipal Election on April 7, 2026: Plant City)
April 10, 2026June 9, 2026Municipal Election (Greenwood)
DelawareApril 14, 2026June 13, 2026Municipal Election (Millsboro)
TennesseeApril 17, 2026June 16, 2026Municipal Election (Brownsville)
CaliforniaApril 18, 2026June 2, 2026General Primary Elections
IowaApril 18, 2026June 2, 2026General Primary Elections
MontanaApril 18, 2026June 2, 2026General Primary Elections
New JerseyApril 18, 2026June 2, 2026General Primary Elections
New MexicoApril 18, 2026June 2, 2026General Primary Elections
South DakotaApril 18, 2026June 2, 2026General Primary Elections
FloridaApril 22, 2026May 19, 2026Runoff Elections (Municipal Elections on April 21, 2026: Mexico Beach and Springfield)
TennesseeApril 24, 2026June 23, 2026Municipal Election (Maynardville)
MaineApril 25, 2026June 9, 2026General Primary Elections
NevadaApril 25, 2026June 9, 2026General Primary Elections
North DakotaApril 25, 2026June 9, 2026General Primary Elections
South CarolinaApril 25, 2026June 9, 2026General Primary Elections
TennesseeApril 26, 2026June 25, 2026Municipal Election (Plainview)
FloridaApril 29, 2026May 12, 2026Runoff Election (Municipal Election on April 28, 2026: Quincy)

As a refresher, in the 45 days before a primary election, and 60 days before a general or special election, broadcasters must extend to legally qualified candidates their lowest unit rate and continue to follow all other applicable political broadcasting rules.  For a deeper dive on how to prepare for the 2026 elections, see our post here, which also includes a link to our comprehensive Political Broadcasting Guide.  Also, take a look at our 2026 Broadcasters’ Calendar to see if your state has any upcoming primary, general, or special election (and confirm that all dates for political windows, including those listed above, are accurate as some dates have changed since the calendar was prepared).

As always, consult your own legal and technical advisors for other dates of importance that might apply to your stations in the upcoming month.

Every year at about this time, with April Fools’ Day right around the corner, we need to play our role as attorneys and ruin any fun that you may be planning by repeating our reminder that broadcasters need to be careful with any on-air pranks, jokes or other on-air bits prepared especially for the day.  While a little fun is OK, remember that the FCC has a rule against on-air hoaxes, and there can be liability issues with false alerts that are run on a station.  Issues like these can arise at any time, but a broadcaster’s temptation to go over the line is probably highest on April 1.  This year, the warning takes on new urgency, as the Chairman of the FCC has placed renewed emphasis on broadcast stations serving the public interest, and specifically citing the hoax rule as one that stations should be particularly cognizant to avoid license renewal issues.  While some of these warnings came in the context of broadcasts not covered by traditional interpretations of the hoax rule, these warnings have nevertheless given more publicity to the existence of this rule. 

The FCC’s rule against broadcast hoaxes, Section 73.1217, prevents stations from running any information about a “crime or catastrophe” on the air, if the broadcaster (1) knows the information to be false, (2) it is reasonably foreseeable that the broadcast of the material will cause substantial public harm and (3) public harm is in fact caused.  Public harm is defined as “direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.”  If you air a program that fits within this definition and causes a public harm, you should expect to be fined by the FCC.

Continue Reading With April Fools Day Almost Upon Us, Broadcasters Beware of the FCC Hoax Rule

The unusual story of the sale of TEGNA Inc. has seemingly (more on that below) come to an end after a four-year FCC review process, encompassing two attempted purchases, two administrative actions involving multiple rule waivers and novel questions of law, but no rulings by the Commissioners themselves. On Thursday, the FCC’s Media Bureau issued an order approving the transfer of control of the company to Nexstar Media and the deal was closed by the parties that same day.  Today, we look back at the unusual actions leading to the sale of TEGNA and at what last week’s approval may preview as to major changes ahead for the broadcast industry .

The unusual nature of the sale of TEGNA did not start with last week’s decision but instead began in 2022 when TEGNA first announced its plan to be acquired by Standard General.  After an application seeking approval for that sale was filed, objections were submitted from labor organizations, public interest groups, and representatives from the multichannel video provider community.  Despite divestiture plans to bring Standard General into compliance with the FCC’s television ownership rules, in 2023, the FCC’s Media Bureau, after a full year of consideration, decided that it could not reach a decision on the case, but that the case had to be reviewed by an FCC Administrative Law Judge to hold a hearing to decide two issues – neither of which had ever been the source for the rejection of a broadcast sale in the past. 

Continue Reading FCC Media Bureau Approves Nexstar’s Acquisition of TEGNA – What Does It Mean for Consideration of the Broadcast Ownership Rules? 

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the transfer of control of TEGNA to Nexstar Media.  The transfer, which was consummated immediately after the grant, results in Nexstar owning 2 TV stations in 17 Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs) and more than 2 stations in 23 markets, as well as having a national audience reach of 54.5% of TV households.  The Bureau granted Nexstar’s waiver of the 39% national TV ownership cap (which it found that it had the authority to do), citing the increased competition faced by broadcasters from other forms of media, including digital platforms, since the FCC last updated the cap over 20 years ago.  The Bureau also found that Nexstar’s proposed duopolies complied with the FCC’s Local TV Ownership Rule as  common ownership of 2 TV stations in a DMA is permitted in all cases following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit’s decision overturning the FCC’s prohibition on owning two of the Top 4 stations in any market (see our article here).  The FCC also granted Nexstar’s requested waiver of the local TV ownership rule in the 23 markets where it owns more than 2 stations finding that, in the vast majority of those markets, the station combinations would strengthen competition by supporting weaker TV stations that will be owned by Nexstar, allowing their continued operation which might not be possible without support from the company’s more successful stations in those markets.  Nexstar did, however, agree to divest stations in 6 markets within 2 years if the ownership rules prohibiting such combinations are still in place at that time.
    • FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement criticizing the decision, stating that the approved transfer violates the national TV ownership cap and was “approved behind closed doors with no open process, no full Commission vote, and no transparency for the consumers and communities who will bear the consequences,” and that “the American public deserves to know how and why this decision was made.”
  • Commissioner Gomez also released a statement in response to FCC Chairman Carr’s recent statements, which we noted last week, that broadcasters could lose their licenses for airing unfavorable coverage of the war in Iran.  Gomez stated that the “FCC has vanishingly little power over national news networks” and noted that TV station licenses are not “up for renewal until 2028.”  While Gomez characterized Carr’s statements as “grounded in neither reality nor law and would not survive judicial scrutiny,” she stated that “the concern over the chilling effect of these actions, however, is very real” and follow “a well-established pattern of threatened investigations, broadcast license revocations, and regulatory harassment aimed at pressuring broadcasters and their corporate parents to comply or capitulate in advance.” 
  • The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau granted a limited waiver of the FCC’s Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules to permit a group of Michigan radio and TV stations to operate without EAS equipment while the stations were moved to new facilities.  The FCC’s rules require stations, when they are operational, to have EAS equipment installed and capable of sending and receiving EAS tests and messages.  The Bureau granted the waiver noting that it was for a very short period during the station moves (up to 1 hour) and the licensee pledged not to proceed with the moves if there was a risk of an emergency event or if there was a planned EAS test on the move date.  See our Broadcast Law Blog discussion here of similar waivers granted recently, noting that these decisions make clear that the FCC requires a waiver when fully functional EAS equipment is deactivated, even temporarily, while the Commission’s rules give stations 60 days without requiring FCC approval to repair EAS equipment that malfunctions.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau notified a Virginia FM station that its proposed community of license change from Gretna, Virginia to Brookneal, Virginia conflicted with the FCC’s community of license change policies.  Several years ago, the station was licensed to Gretna but received a construction permit to move to Halifax, Virginia. Under Commission policy, a city of license change is effective when the construction permit is granted, even if the actual construction of the modified facilities has not yet occurred. In the interim, the station operates with an “implied STA” from its original facilities. While the licensee claimed that the city of license change was in the public interest because Brookneal would receive its first local service while Gretna (where the station is still operating) would continue receiving a first local service from another station, the Bureau found that the comparison should have been between Halifax and Brookneal, as the previously granted construction permit meant that the station was no longer licensed to Gretna.  Even though the facilities to serve Halifax had never been constructed, the Bureau found that first local service at the larger community of Halifax was preferred over the first local service at the smaller community of Brookneal.  Thus, it rejected the proposed city of license change, though it permitted the licensee to amend its proposal within 30 days in a manner that would comply with Commission policy.
  • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Virginia LPFM station to resolve its investigation into the station’s compliance with the FCC’s underwriting rules, which prohibit noncommercial stations, including LPFM stations, from airing commercial advertisements.  The investigation arose from objections to the station’s license renewal application which made several allegations, including not only the underwriting issues, but also issues arising from a “co-op” agreement to which the licensee was a party, which allowed several LPFM stations to share facilities and commonly seek underwriting support.  Questions were raised as to whether this agreement violated the FCC rule against LPFM stations having operating agreements with other full-power or low power stations.  The Bureau concluded that, as the licensee’s agreement was with the co-op and not the licensees of the other stations, and as nothing showed that the co-op controlled the programming, personnel, or finances of the licensee, this arrangement did not violate the rule.  But the Bureau promised to review any similar arrangements very carefully as it believed that this agreement was close to the line.  However, finding that some of the “underwriting” on the station promoted rather than simply identified the station’s sponsors, the Consent Decree was adopted, requiring the station to implement a compliance plan to ensure the licensee’s future compliance with FCC rules.  See our article here on the limits of permissible underwriting under FCC rules.    
  • The Media Bureau affirmed its July 2025 decision dismissing a Florida LPFM construction permit application based on objections that the applicant failed to meet the FCC’s LPFM localism requirement because the multiple addresses submitted by the applicant that could be its headquarters were all located more than 10 miles from the proposed station’s transmitter site (the limit for LPFM applicants within the top 50 urban markets).  The applicant requested reinstatement of its application claiming that it met the LPFM localism requirement because it relocated its headquarters after it filed its application so that it was within the required 10-mile radius, which it disclosed in an amendment filed after the LPFM filing window closed.  The Bureau rejected the applicant’s arguments, stating that an applicant must meet the localism requirement when its original application is filed, and noncompliance at the time of filing cannot be corrected by an amendment.  While the applicant argued that the Bureau had previously accepted an amendment to another application to clarify the applicant’s educational purpose, that decision was rejected as being precedent for accepting an amendment in this case, as the other applicant was in compliance with the educational purpose obligation at the time of filing, and the accepted amendment merely clarified that compliance. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we posted a two-part discussion of the legal risks of advertising or promotions using “March Madness,” “Final Four,” and other NCAA trademarks (see here and here) unless you have permission of the NCAA.  We also published an article that highlighted some of the legal issues under state laws that can arise when artificial intelligence is used in political attack ads to create “deep fakes” or “synthetic media” of political candidates.

This past weekend, we saw an ad posted on YouTube attacking Democratic Senatorial candidate James Talarico – using words that were apparently from his own tweets, commenting on a number of social issues.  What made the ad notable was that the words from the tweets were not just displayed on the screen or read by some anonymous announcer, but instead they were stitched together and read in what was seemingly Talarico’s own voice accompanied by a very convincing AI image of Talarico himself, and interjections were included where his AI image said approvingly things about the tweets like “I remember this one” and “so true.”   It is only apparent that the ad was not an actual recording of Talarico delivering the message by a small disclaimer in one corner of the ad labeling it “AI Generated.”  The ad is a very convincing portrayal of Talarico, and we expect similar ads will show up during the course of the current election cycle.  Broadcasters and all other media companies need to be ready to deal with ads like these and comply with all legal obligations that apply to such advertising.

We have written before about the efforts during the last administration by the FCC, the Federal Election Commission (see our note here and our article here), and by Congress to regulate the use of AI in political ads on a national level.  Those efforts did not lead to national rules on such uses.  However, the majority of states have adopted some rules for the use of AI in political ads.  For media companies, the biggest issue is that these rules are not uniform but instead impose different obligations to avoid legal liability.

We last wrote extensively about the state laws affecting the use of artificial intelligence in political ads about two years ago, when only 11 states had adopted such rules.  Since then, more than 20 other states have adopted rules – and the obligations they impose are all over the board.  Some states (like Minnesota) make it illegal to use AI in political ads to portray a candidate doing something that they did not actually do unless the candidate consents.  Most do not go that far but instead require some form of disclosure (like that in the anti-Tallarico ad, except that in many states, the required text for the disclosures is far more extensive, though those disclosure obligations are not uniform and, in a few states, the  disclosure requirements are inconsistent in the state’s own criminal and civil statutes). 

Continue Reading AI in Political Attack Ads – Watch State Laws on Deep Fakes and Synthetic Media in Political Content

Yesterday, I wrote about the history of the NCAA’s asserting the rights to an array of trademarks associated with this month’s college basketball tournaments.  Today, I will provide some examples of the activities that can bring unwanted NCAA attention to your promotions or advertising, as well as an increasingly important development that should be considered when considering whether to accept advertising.

Activities that May Result in a Demand Letter from the NCAA

The NCAA acknowledges that media entities can sell advertising that accompanies the entity’s coverage of the NCAA championships.  However, similar to my discussion in January on the use of Super Bowl trademarks (see here) and my 2024 discussion on the use of Olympics trademarks (see here), unless authorized by the NCAA, any of the following activities may result in a cease and desist demand:

  • accepting advertising that refers to the NCAA®, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, March Madness®, The Big Dance®, Final Four®, Elite Eight® or any other NCAA trademark or logo.  (The NCAA has posted a list of its trademarks here.)
    • Example: An ad from a retailer with the headline, “Buy A New Big Screen TV in Time to Watch March Madness.”  Presumably, to avoid this issue, some advertisers have used “The Big Game” or “It’s Tournament Time!”
  • local programming that uses any NCAA trademark as part of its name.
    • Example: A locally produced program previewing the tournament called “The Big Dance: Pick a Winning Bracket.”
  • selling the right to sponsor the overall coverage by a broadcaster, website or print publication of the tournament.
    • Example: During the sports segment of the local news, introducing the section of the report on tournament developments as “March Madness, brought to you by [name of advertiser].”
  • sweepstakes or giveaways that include any NCAA trademark in its name. (see here)
    • Example: “The Final Four Giveaway.”
  • sweepstakes or giveaways that offer tickets to a tournament game as a prize.
    • Example: even if the sweepstakes name is not a problem, offering game tickets as a prize will raise an objection by the NCAA due to language on the tickets prohibiting their use for such purposes.
  • events or parties that use any NCAA trademark to attract guests.
    • Example: a radio station sponsors a happy hour where fans can watch a tournament game, with any NCAA marks that are prominently placed on signage.
  • advertising that wishes or congratulates a team, or its coach or players, on success in the tournament.
    • Example: “[Advertiser name] wishes [Name of Coach] and the 2022 [Name of Team] success in the NCAA tournament!”

There is a common pitfall that is unique to the NCAA, namely, basketball: tournament brackets used by advertisers, in newspapers or other media, or office pools where participants predict the winners of each game in advance of the tournament.  The NCAA’s position (see here) is that the unauthorized placement of advertising within an NCAA bracket and corporate sponsorship of a tournament bracket is misleading and constitutes an infringement of its intellectual property rights.   Accordingly, it says that any advertising should be outside of the bracket space and should clearly indicate that the advertiser or its goods or services are not sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise associated with the NCAA or its championship tournament.

Continue Reading It’s March … Time for Madness!:  Risks of Using or Accepting or Engaging in Advertising or Promotions that Use FINAL FOUR or Other NCAA Trademarks:  2026 Update – Part II

Each year, as the NCAA basketball tournaments get underway, my colleague Mitch Stabbe highlights the trademark issues that can arise from uses of the well-known words and phrases associated with the games in advertising, promotions, and other media coverage. Here is Part I of his review. Look for Part II tomorrow.

March is certainly a busy month for sports.  The professional basketball and hockey leagues are getting close to their playoffs.  Baseball is in the midst of Spring Training.  NFL teams are signing free agents.  And, of course, the NCAA College Basketball Tournaments will take place over the course of the month.

This is my eleventh annual column for the Broadcast Law Blog on the subject of the potential pitfalls to broadcasters in using the NCAA’s FINAL FOUR and other trademarks or accepting advertising that use the marks.  There continue to be changes in college sports, particularly in the area of paying student athletes for the use of Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) rights and teams changing conferences .  However, the NCAA’s hard line against unauthorized uses of FINAL FOUR or its other marks has not changed, including at least one action that took place just a few weeks ago..

That said, it is clear that the value of the NCAA’s basketball tournament rights has, however, greatly changed, which helps explain the enduring efforts to challenge unauthorized uses of its marks.  Thus, broadcasters, publishers and other businesses need to continue to be wary about potential claims arising from their use of terms and logos associated with the tournament.

NCAA Trademarks

The NCAA owns the well-known marks March Madness®, Final Four®, Final 4®, Women’s Final Four®, Elite Eight®, Women’s Elite Eight®, Road to the Final Four® and The Road to the Final Four® (with and without the word “The”), each of which is a federally registered trademark.  The NCAA does not own “Sweet Sixteen” – someone else does.  However, the NCAA has a license to use the mark and has federal registrations for NCAA Sweet Sixteen®and NCAA Sweet 16®.

Continue Reading It’s March … Time for Madness!:  Risks of Using or Accepting or Engaging in Advertising or Promotions that Use FINAL FOUR or Other NCAA Trademarks:  2026 Update – Part I

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • Linking to a post from the President complaining about the accuracy of media coverage of the Iran conflict, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr posted the following on X – “Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions – also known as the fake news – have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.” His post went on to say that it was in the best interests of broadcasters to be more accurate in their coverage, citing statistics that suggest that the public does not trust legacy media and providing examples of what he termed “fake news.”
  • The Copyright Royalty Board this week published in the Federal Register its approval of the settlements between SoundExchange and certain groups of broadcasters.  These settlements set royalties to be paid by these broadcasters for the webcasting of sound recordings (including broadcast simulcasts) from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2030.  Settlements covering commercial broadcasters (see our Broadcast Law Blog article here providing more details on this settlement with the NAB), NPR and other CPB stations, webcasting by certain educational institutions, and one noncommercial religious broadcaster were approved.  The CRB has yet to publicly release a decision as the royalties to be paid by other webcasters not covered by these settlements, including certain noncommercial broadcasters. 
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing that it made changes to the call signs of several TV translator stations to bring them into compliance with the FCC’s new rule requiring that all TV translator call signs follow a uniform format (the letter “K” or “W” followed by the channel number and then “-D”) (see our note here).  The affected TV translators listed in the Notice will be reissued authorizations with their updated call signs.  The Bureau stated that the TV translators listed in the Notice were the only TV translator call signs that needed to be changed under the new rule.  The Bureau also reminded licensees of these translators to update the call sign that is transmitted in their on-air station identification. 
  • The FTC released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding negative option marketing practices, including whether to require sellers to provide “Click to Cancel” options to consumers for cancelling their enrollments in subscriptions and services with “negative options” (contractual terms and conditions allowing a seller to interpret a customer’s silence, or failure to take an affirmative action, as acceptance of an offer to sell and charge for goods or services).  In July 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the FTC’s Click to Cancel Rule (see our note here), finding that the FTC had not fully assessed the impact of and the alternatives to the new rule, which had provided more consumer protections allowing easier cancellation of negative option enrollments (see our note here).  In the ANPRM, the FTC asks numerous questions about negative option use, consumer difficulty in using negative option frameworks, and the costs and benefits of new rules.  It expressed a general skepticism towards the existing patchwork of laws and rules, which it believes does not provide a consistent legal framework to industry and consumers for implementing and assessing varied negative option marketing uses across different media, but did not propose any new rules.  Instead, it highlighted the FTC’s enforcement actions related to unfair cancellation practices. 
  • The FCC’s Office of Managing Director (OMD) released a Public Notice acting on a number of requests by FCC-regulated entities (mostly broadcasters) seeking waiver or deferral of annual regulatory fees.  While the OMD historically acted on such requests through individual letter decisions, the OMD announced last September that it would now do so in grouped decisions like this one (see our note here). 
  • The Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing that April 11 is the deadline for all U.S.-based foreign media outlets classified as “an agent of a foreign government” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act to notify the FCC of their relationship to, and whether the outlet receives any funding from, a foreign government or political party.  This obligation applies only to video programmers (other than news organizations) backed by foreign governments or foreign political parties or their agents.  The FCC must report to Congress every 6 months on the operations of U.S.-based foreign media outlets, which it will submit on or before May 11.  Given the narrow scope of entities covered by this obligation, the FCC often reports that no entity registered (see, for instance, our note here).  This reporting requirement should not be confused with the broader obligation of all broadcasters to determine if foreign governments or their agents have bought program time or issue advertising on broadcast stations (see our articles here and here), or the recently adopted rules about reporting broadcast ownership interests of foreign adversaries (which we noted here).