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).

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 released a draft Report and Order that, if adopted at its next Open Meeting on March 26, would update and clarify several broadcast rules.  These changes include updating rules conform 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 viewer/MVPD notification requirements, the requirement for a 20% increase in AM station power for a power increase application to be processed, and the rule that restricted Special Temporary Authorizations for technical and equipment problems to 90 days when other STAs can be granted for up to 180 days); modifying the rules as to who can sign FCC applications 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 FCC’s Media Bureau entered into two Consent Decrees to resolve its investigations of various FCC rule violations arising during its review of the station license renewal applications:
    • The Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with an Arizona TV station to resolve an investigation of the station’s failure to comply with its Online Public Inspection File (OPIF) obligations.  The Bureau found that the station failed to timely upload 14 Quarterly Issues/Programs lists and 9 commercial limits certifications to its OPIF during its last license renewal period.  The Consent Decree requires that the station pay a $6,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.
    • The Bureau also entered into a Consent Decree with an Oregon noncommercial FM station to resolve its investigation of the station’s failure to comply with the FCC’s underwriting rules arising from a complaint filed against the station.  The Bureau found that the station aired 9 announcements that impermissibly promoted the sponsor because they contained comparative and qualitative descriptions, menu listings of products or services, and inducements to buy products or services.  The Consent Decree requires that the station pay a $5,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury and implement a compliance plan to ensure future compliance with the FCC’s underwriting rules.  The Bureau also dismissed two petitions to deny the renewal application which raised additional FCC rule violations, including that the station’s most recent biennial ownership report was incomplete.  The Bureau found that the station did not intend to deceive the FCC by filing an incomplete ownership report and it corrected the report when it was made aware of the issue, but it cautioned the station to be more diligent in the future in complying with its ownership reporting obligations.
  • The FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the transfer of an individual’s interests in the licensee of several Wyoming radio stations to her ex-husband following her felony conviction for income tax evasion.  Criminal convictions call into question an individual’s character and fitness to hold an FCC license, and the FCC generally prohibits the assignment or transfer of a station’s license when character qualification issues are pending against the transferor.  However, as ex-husband was not implicated in the wrongdoing and had a long history of FCC compliance, and as the wrongdoer will receive no consideration from the transaction and will no longer be part of the broadcast industry, the Commission found that grant of the application will preserve broadcast service to the Wyoming communities served by the stations and was otherwise in the public interest.
  • Cumulus Media announced that filed for bankruptcy in a Texas federal bankruptcy court to eliminate roughly $600 million in debt.  Cumulus stated that it will continue operating normally during the bankruptcy proceeding.  Cumulus’ bankruptcy plan will need to be approved by both the bankruptcy court and the FCC (through the filing of transfer applications for its stations) before it can complete its bankruptcy restructuring. 
  • The FCC announced that comments are due May 1 in response to the following AM and FM stations’ proposed community of license changes: WZON(AM), Bangor, Maine, to Norridgewock, Maine; WAKE(AM), Valparaiso, Indiana, to Hobart, Indiana; WFAD(AM), Middlebury, Vermont, to Bridport, Vermont; WLBE(AM), Leesburg-Eustis, Florida, to Geneva, Florida; WLCZ(FM), Lincolnton, Georgia, to Appling, Georgia; WLNK-FM, Indian Trail, North Carolina, to Weddington, North Carolina; KXAV(FM), Hebbronville, Texas, to Bruni, Texas; and WMSU(FM), Starkville, Mississippi, to Artesia, Mississippi.

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 issued a Public Notice seeking comment on how changes in the sports programming marketplace have impacted consumers and broadcasters, including broadcasters’ ability to meet their public interest obligations.  The Bureau seeks comments on matters including 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.  Comments and reply comments responding to the Notice are due March 27 and April 13, respectively.  For more information, see the article on our Broadcast Law Blog regarding the FCC’s inquiry.
  • The FCC released a Public Notice announcing that comments and reply comments are due March 13 and 23, respectively, responding to its Public Notice released last week announcing its plans to open a filing window in 2026 for new noncommercial FM translator stations in the reserved band (Channels 201-220).  The FCC seeks comment on a proposal to limit the filing window to the licensee or permittee of the noncommercial educational FM, noncommercial AM, or LPFM station that the proposed translator will rebroadcast; and to limit applicants to no more than 10 applications, except that Tribal LPFM applicants would be limited to 4 applications and all other LPFM applicants would be limited to 2 applications.    For more on this filing window, see our article on the Broadcast Law Blog.
  • The Media Bureau released an Order granting an application for the assignment of an Indianapolis TV station from Scripps to Circle City Broadcasting, waiving the local television ownership rules to allow Circle City to own three TV stations in the Indianapolis Designated Market Area (DMA).  The current rules allow one owner to hold the licenses of only two stations in any DMA.  The Bureau found that Circle City’s acquisition of the Indianapolis ABC affiliate was essential to Circle City being able to compete with the other network-affiliated stations in the market, which have a larger market share than will the three Circle City stations.  It also found that divestiture of one of Circle City’s independent TV stations was impractical as a prospective buyer would have to invest significant capital to operate the station as a stand-alone facility and would be unlikely to be able to continue to provide the significant local news programming currently offered by the station. 
  • The FCC’s Space Bureau released a Public Notice announcing a one year extension of its temporary expedited processing procedures for earth station licensees, which were originally adopted last March.  The expedited processing procedures allow for the grant of STAs for certain short-term uses and to allow the commencement of operations while regular license applications are pending without waiting for a 30-day prior notice and comment period to pass.  The Bureau extended its temporary processing procedures while the FCC’s proceeding to modernize its earth station application procedures remained ongoing (see our note here).  The expedited processing procedures are extended through March 10, 2027. 
  • The Media Bureau notified a Virginia FM station that its proposed community of license change and transmitter site relocation from Martinsville, Virginia to New Castle, Virginia (a move within the Roanoke, Virgina urbanized area) conflicted with the FCC’s guidelines for community changes within urbanized areas.  The station argued that the proposed community change was in the public interest because it would result in a net service gain of 74,208 people.  The Bureau found that the station incorrectly used the station’s allotment coordinates to calculate this coverage gain instead of the station’s current and proposed transmitter coordinates as required by FCC policy for moves within urbanized areas.  When using the proper coordinates, the Bureau found that the proposed modification would result in a net loss of service to 137,657 people within the station’s service contour and a net loss of service to 133,322 people within the Roanoke urbanized area.  Thus, the Bureau found that retaining a third local service in the larger community of Martinsville (13,485 people) was preferred over the proposed smaller community of New Castle (125 people).  The station now has 30 days to amend its application to conform with the FCC’s community of license change policies or it will be dismissed.  
  • The FCC’s Office of Managing Director released an Order denying waiver requests filed by 30 different FCC-regulated entities, including some broadcasters, of the 25% late payment penalty assessed for regulatory fees for fiscal year 2024 and 2025 paid after the payment deadline set by the Commission’s staff.  The Managing Director found that each entity did not satisfy its burden of explaining why waiver was necessary, noting that waivers of late payment penalties are only granted in extraordinary circumstances. 
  • The FCC’s Administrative Law Judge terminated a hearing proceeding involving the licensee of three Texas radio stations which the Media Bureau ordered in January (see our note here) to determine whether the stations’ licenses should be revoked because of issues including a possible unauthorized transfer of control to a Mexican citizen, and whether an application for a transfer of control proposing to change the licensee’s owner should be granted.  At the request of the licensee, the ALJ dismissed the transfer application.  The licensee also elected to proceed without a hearing on the question of whether its licenses should be revoked, instead filing a written statement as allowed by the Commission rules, setting out the reasons why its licenses should not be revoked.  The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau sought to file a reply to the licensee’s written statement.  As such a reply is not permitted under the Commission’s rules, the ALJ certified the case to the full Commission to determine if a reply should be permitted and, if it is, what other actions should be taken with respect to the revocation proceeding. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we took a look at the upcoming March regulatory dates and deadlines affecting broadcasters.  We also discussed the need for stations to get prior approvals for voluntarily disabling functional EAS equipment, as evidenced by several EAS waiver requests granted by the Media Bureau in recent weeks.

The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice this week starting an examination of the marketplace for sports rights and how changes in that market have affected local broadcasters and consumers.  The notice recognizes what is evident to all consumers – that the sports marketplace has changed as competition has grown for rights to transmit sports to the public.  While asking for comments on those changes, perhaps the most important question asked by the Bureau is, even if it is found that changes in some ways disadvantage some consumers, does the FCC have any jurisdiction to do anything about those changes?

Initially, the FCC recognizes that sports programming long desired by TV broadcasters to attract local audiences is now also sought by cable and streaming companies to attract those same audiences. The FCC notes that competition for these rights likely increases the costs of acquiring this programming, perhaps making it harder for consumers to get access to the programming when it is not on free TV.  The FCC also suggests that the dispersion of rights in some sports leagues may make it harder for consumers to find the programming that they desire, as coverage is spread across multiple broadcast and streaming platforms.  Not only are consumers confused, but they may end up paying more through subscriptions to multiple services to ensure that they can see the games of their favorite teams.

Continue Reading FCC to Examine Changes in Sports Media Marketplace and Its Impact on Broadcasters’ Public Interest Obligations