We have written many times about the concerns regarding the marketing of CBD products on broadcast stations. As we wrote here, here, and here, the FDA and FTC have repeatedly warned makers of these products that they cannot make specific health claims about the products and cannot market products that are intended to be ingested. In a recent action, the FDA issued 15 warning letters to companies marketing CBD products – warning them about marketing both for edible products and for health claims (see the FDA press release here with links to all 15 warning letters). The FDA also released a Consumer Update warning consumers about many of the potential risks of CBD use and noting that, except for a single epilepsy drug, it has not approved any medical uses of these products.

These warning letters include a litany of advertising issues that the FDA found problematic, beyond the simple issues of advertising products to be ingested and making specific health claims. In several letters (including those here, here and here), the FDA suggested that even claims about CBD being good to relieve “aches and pains” or that it “reduces inflammation” exceeded the legal limits on marketing. Even claims that oils used for “skin conditions, spot pain management and sore joints,” qualified with the fact that the uses were “still being studied,” were noted as being concerns. Advertising about products aimed at children was noted as being particularly problematic as use by “vulnerable populations” is a real concern where no FDA-recognized research has established the safety of those products. Animal products were also recognized as a concern, as they also have not been approved as being safe and effective. Continue Reading Many More Warning Letters Sent by FDA to CBD Companies – More Issues for Advertisers

With more and more stations relying on FM translators to provide local service, a decision released last week emphasizes the importance of following the rules about the operations of these stations.  In the decision, the FCC’s Audio Division proposed to issue a $2,000 fine for an FM translator owner that failed to advise the FCC that it had switched the primary signal being rebroadcast by the translator, as required by the rules.  The Audio Division concluded that, for about a month, the translator was not rebroadcasting what had been specified as the primary station.  During that time, as the translator was rebroadcasting a local station that already had a translator serving much of the same area, the licensee was also faulted for not making a “technical need” showing as to why it was rebroadcasting the same signal to substantially the same area.  Two translators cannot rebroadcast the same signal to the same area without special permission if there is substantial overlap of the service area of one translator station with the other.

The violations were discovered as a result of a petition filed against the translator’s license application by a local organization, highlighting that a station’s actions may be watched by others in their markets.  The proposed fine would have been $7,000 but the FCC staff found that the violations were not prolonged and that the translator owner had no history of prior offenses.  Given the potential for problems that can ensue should a translator operator be found in violation of the rules, as the FCC has made clear in the past (see for instance, this decision about a translator rebroadcasting a primary station that had been off the air, and our article here about another that was operating with facilities different than set out in its license), be sure that you are observing all the rules that apply to their operations.

The audio from analog channel 6 TV stations can be heard on the FM dial at 87.7 – which is below the lowest official point on the standard FM band in the US (which ends at 88.1) but is nevertheless tunable on most FM radios. Over the last decade, many LPTV stations on channel 6, in markets where they had no other viable business model, turned to providing FM service through these stations. The FCC has for years inquired if these operations, often referred to as Franken FMs, should be permitted (see our articles here and here) but has never moved to stop it. Now, with the 2021 deadline for the conversion of LPTV stations to digital operation, LPTV operators have asked the FCC to bless the post-conversion operation of an analog audio signal embedded in the digital Channel 6 LPTV station transmissions so that these FM broadcast can continue, following up on a proceeding begun in 2014 (see our article here). This week, the FCC issued a Public Notice asking for additional comments as to whether these Franken FM operations should be allowed to continue, and if so what rules should govern them.

The release of this Public Notice came as somewhat of a surprise, as a similar question had recently been asked in an FCC proceeding looking primarily at LPFM rule changes, but also addressing issues about the relation of TV channel 6 to FM broadcasters (see our article here on that proceeding). In this week’s Public Notice, the FCC suggests that the LPFM proceeding is asking only whether the elimination of protections between channel 6 TV stations and noncommercial radio stations in the reserved band, as proposed in that proceeding, is compatible with the continued operation of these Franken FMs after the digital conversion deadline. It is the proceeding in which these additional comments are now being requested that will address how these stations will be regulated on a permanent basis in the future. To determine that future, this week’s Public Notice poses many specific questions about the continued operation of these Franken FMs. Continue Reading Franken FMs – The FCC Asks if It Should Continue to Allow Channel 6 LPTV Stations to Operate as FM Broadcasters

In the last week, we have received many inquiries from radio stations that received a notice from attorneys for Global Music Rights (GMR) about document production in GMR’s litigation with the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC).  As we have written before (see, for instance, our articles here, here and here), RMLC and GMR have for several years been engaged in antitrust litigation.  RMLC is seeking to impose outside review on the rates that GMR can charge broadcasters for the public performance of the music written by the songwriters that they represent, while GMR argues that RMLC itself violates the antitrust laws by unifying competing broadcasters and preventing them from doing business with GMR.

The recent communications from GMR concern GMR’s obligation to produce documents to the RMLC’s attorneys in discovery in this litigation.  Because RMLC has not been directly involved in GMR’s dealings with radio stations over the interim license agreements (and because RMLC itself does not have copies of the interim licenses that stations entered into with GMR), RMLC’s lawyers asked GMR for the production of these licenses as part of their discovery.  Because the interim licenses contain some confidentiality language, GMR’s recent communications was to let stations know that they are planning to produce those licenses to the RMLC’s attorneys, subject to the Protective Orders that GMR attached to their messages.  These Protective Orders are designed to keep the information in those licenses out of the public record, to be reviewed only by a limited group of people including RMLC’s attorneys and expert witnesses. The GMR communications are asking broadcasters if they have objections to the production of these licenses to RMLC’s lawyers.      Continue Reading Radio Stations Receive Inquiries from GMR on the Production of Interim Licenses – What Is this All About?

The FCC on Friday issued a Public Notice seeking comment on a petition for reconsideration by the NAB and several broadcast groups seeking review of the FCC’s October decision, deemed a “clarification” of the public file disclosure rules for federal political issue ads requiring that all candidates and issues mentioned in any political issue ad be disclosed in the political section of the online public file (see our articles here on the reconsideration filing and here on the FCC’s October decision). The Public Notice sets the deadline for comments on the NAB petition as December 30.

The Public Notice again states that the FCC’s October decision dealt only with issue ads – and not ads from the authorized campaign committees for legally qualified candidates. As we wrote in our article on the reconsideration filing, that was the way I interpreted the FCC decision, based on statements of FCC staff when specifically asked whether the decision applied to candidate ads during the course of a recent webinar that I was moderating, where the staff members cited (and read) footnote 24 in the October decision. That footnote is the one cited in the Public Notice, and states that the October decision applied only to issue ads. Continue Reading More on Required Public File Disclosures of Issue Ads – Comment Dates on NAB Petition for Reconsideration and Another Admonition for Inadequate Disclosures

Late last month, the Ask Musicians For Music Act (the “AMFM Act”) was introduced in both the House and Senate. If enacted, the AMFM Act would impose on over-the-air broadcast radio stations a performance royalty for the use of sound recordings in their programming. This is yet another bill proposing that the current royalty that requires that digital music services pay royalties both for the use of musical compositions (as already paid by broadcasters) and the sound recording (currently paid by broadcasters only for the Internet streams of their programming) be extended to cover all over-the-air broadcasts by radio stations. Extending the sound recording performance royalty to over-the-air radio has been proposed many times before (see, for instance, our articles hereherehere and here), but this is the first time that the proposal has been advanced in the current session of Congress. Similar bills were introduced last session before the 2018 elections but were never brought to a vote in either the House or the Senate – see our post here.

As we’ve written before, the royalties that broadcasters pay to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and even GMR are paid to the composers of music (and the copyright holders in the musical compositions, usually a publishing company). Sound recording royalties are paid to the performers (and the copyright holders in the performances, usually the record labels). These are the royalties that broadcasters pay to SoundExchange when they stream their programming on the Internet. Historically, in the US, broadcasters and other businesses who play sound recordings are not subject to a performance royalty for the use of those sound recordings (except for digital audio music services who do pay sound recording performance royalties in the US), though such royalties are paid in many other countries in the world. This bill proposes to make broadcasters pay for their over-the-air performances. Under the provisions of the bill, the Copyright Royalty Board would set these royalties along with those paid by digital audio services, and the royalties would be paid to SoundExchange. Continue Reading AMFM Act Introduced in Congress to Impose Sound Recording Performance Royalty on Broadcast Stations

Last month, the FCC issued what it termed a “clarification” of the obligations of broadcasters to disclose in their public inspection files each and every candidate and issue discussed in any Federal issue adWe wrote about the Clarification here.  That decision prompted many questions among broadcasters as to how they would comply with the requirement to uniformly identify every issue in political ads, when that judgement might well be quite subjective.  The National Association of Broadcasters apparently agreed, and filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Clarification, available here.  Hearst Television, Graham Media, Nexstar, Fox, Tegna, and Scripps joined the NAB in filing the Petition.

The NAB’s Petition raises numerous issues about the FCC decision.  It suggests that the Commission did not have the power to make what most in broadcasting thought was a change in the rules without first soliciting public comment on the proposed changes.  The Petition also argues that the Clarification sets up requirements that will be almost impossible to meet.  The FCC stated that “a political issue of national importance” (which is what an issue ad must discuss in order to trigger the disclosure obligations) includes anything pending before Congress.  The NAB asks how a broadcaster is supposed to know about every issue that may be pending before Congress?  The NAB also expresses concern about the catch-all determination in the Clarification stating that political issues of national importance can go beyond just pending legislation or federal political candidates to include any political issue that is subject to discussion and debate at a national level.  The NAB argues that this could encompass almost anything except the most hyperlocal issue (e.g., a school bond issue).  All sorts of advertising could end up being swept up into this definition.  Continue Reading NAB Seeks Reconsideration of FCC’s Clarification of Issue Advertising Public Disclosure Requirements – Rules Remain in Effect Though Some Clarification Provided

In a very short decision issued on Wednesday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the FCC’s request for rehearing of the September decision of a panel of three of its judges which overturned the FCC’s 2017 decision changing many of the broadcast ownership rules (including the abolition of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules).  We wrote about the FCC’s request for a rehearing “en banc” by the full Third Circuit here, and about the three-judge panel’s decision overturning the FCC decision here.  Wednesday’s decision said little of substance, only stating that a majority of the Court had not voted for the rehearing request, and thus it was denied.  What is next for the FCC?

At this point, with the 2017 rules vacated by the Third Circuit, the FCC has two options.  It can appeal to the Supreme Court, though that Court accepts for consideration only a few cases each year.  The other option is that the FCC can try to adopt new rules by meeting the panel’s seemingly impossible mandate to find definitive historical data about minority ownership of broadcast stations that can be applied to determine the effect of any broadcast ownership changes on diversity of ownership.  Watch in the coming weeks to see which of these options the FCC decides to pursue.

Earlier this week, the FCC released a Public Notice announcing its plans for the initiation of new annual reporting requirements for TV stations under the revised Children’s Television Rules. As we wrote here, the FCC this summer adopted changes in the rules governing the broadcast of educational and informational programming directed to children. These changes included the abolition of the Quarterly Children’s Television Reports and their replacement with an annual Children’s Report to detail a station’s performance in meeting the new educational and informational programming requirements. Earlier this fall, the FCC released guidance on the reporting of information from the third quarter of this year, as the new rules became effective on September 16 (see our article here). The Public Notice released this week covers the full transition to the annual reports.

The FCC anticipates the revised annual report will be ready for use in the FCC’s LMS database by January 1, 2020.  Children’s television programming aired on or after the September 16, 2019 effective date of the new rules will be reported by commercial full power and Class A television stations on a broadcaster’s first annual Children’s Report, which will be due no later than January 30, 2020. The FCC’s Media Bureau will issue another public notice announcing the actual effective date of the revised form.     Continue Reading FCC Announces Schedule for Transition to Annual Children’s Television Reports

The FCC last week announced an extension of the deadline for initial comments in its proceeding to examine the regulatory fees that are paid by VHF television stations. We wrote here about this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which asked questions including whether VHF television stations and stations in the FCC’s incubator program should pay lower fees than currently scheduled. Those comments were originally due on November 22, but at the request of a satellite trade association whose members have fees that are also addressed in the proceeding, the deadline was extended until December 6, with reply comments now due on January 6.