Advertising Issues

Subscribe to Advertising Issues via RSS
  • President Trump signed an Executive Order purporting to end federal subsidies for NPR and PBS provided through the Corporation for
…
  • The FCC announced that May 23 is the effective date of its January Order increasing its application fees, including those
…
  • The NAB and SoundExchange filed with the Copyright Royalty Board a proposed settlement of the pending litigation over the 2026-2030
…

A few weeks ago, FCC Chairman Carr announced the beginning of the “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding at the FCC – looking at “alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the companies that it regulates, across all industries, to unleash companies to innovate, invest, and expand.  Comments are due April 11 and replies April 28.  With less than a week to go before comments are filed in this latest attempt to lessen the regulatory burden on broadcasters, we thought that we would look at some of the issues that may come up in this proceeding, and some of the policies that stubbornly remain on the books but should be addressed.

Broadcasters are expected to advance many ideas.  But, before considering some of the issues likely to be addressed, it is important to put this proceeding in context.  This is not the first time broadcasters have been asked to engage in this kind of exercise.  In the 1980s, the FCC conducted multiple proceedings to address the “regulatory underbrush,” eliminating, among other things, rules that had required specific amounts of news and public affairs programming on every station, rules mandating a specific number of PSAs, rules requiring specific program and engineering logs as official records for every station, and policies restricting advertising for certain perceived vices like parimutuel betting and fortune tellers.  In the 1990s, as a result of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, other obligations were changed (including the adoption of the current local radio ownership rules, the abolition of the ability of any party to file a competing application contending that it should get the right to operate a broadcast station every time a license renewal was filed, and extending the license renewal term from three to eight years (see our article on some of those changes, here).  Just eight years ago, FCC Chairman Pai initiated the Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative (see our article here).  That proceeding resulted in the abolition or streamlining of many FCC rules, such as the main studio rule (see our articles  here and here), some children’s television rules (see our posts here and here), and rules prohibiting same-service radio program duplication by commonly owned stations, although the prohibition on FM/FM duplication by commonly owned stations serving the same area was reinstated by the last administration, though that action remains subject to a reconsideration petition (see our articles here, here, here, and here on some of the other changes brought about by Chairman Pai’s initiative).  However, there were many other obligations left unaddressed.  There are so many rules applicable to broadcasters, and so many competitive changes in the market have  impacted the relevance of many of those rules, that no proceeding ever seems to address every issue it should.  But we expect that many rules will be addressed in this “Delete” proceeding. Continue Reading Less Than a Week to Go Before “Delete, Delete, Delete” Proposals on Eliminating Unnecessary FCC Regulations Are Due – What Should Be Included?

Yesterday, I wrote about the history of the NCAA’s assembling of 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.

It should be noted that the NCAA also imposes strict rules about the authorized uses of its trademarks.  The NCAA’s most recent Advertising and Promotional Guidelines for authorized use of its marks are posted online (see here).

Again, importantly, none of these restrictions prevents media companies from using any of the marks in providing customary news coverage of or commentary on the tournament. Trademark law allows you to make references to trademarked terms in news or informational programming where you convey information about those trademarked activities.  But these references should not imply any association between the station (or any sponsor who does not in fact have the rights to state that they are a sponsor) and the NCAA or the tournament (e.g., don’t say that you are the March Madness station in Anytown unless you in fact have the rights from the NCAA to say that). Continue Reading The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same:  Risks of Using or Accepting or Engaging in Advertising or Promotions that Use FINAL FOUR or Other NCAA Trademarks:  2025 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.

This is my tenth 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.  I began last year’s post with the comment that the last few years had been filled with changes in college sports.  I also noted that the NCAA’s hard line against unauthorized uses of FINAL FOUR or its other marks had not changed.

As will be discussed below, looking back over the last ten years, 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®, The Big Dance®, Final Four®, Final 4®, Women’s Final Four®, Elite Eight®, Women’s Elite Eight®, Road to the Final Four® and The Read 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 The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same:  Risks of Using or Accepting or Engaging in Advertising or Promotions that Use FINAL FOUR or Other NCAA Trademarks:  2025 Update – Part I

  • In an effort to exert more control over independent federal agencies, including the FCC, President Trump signed an Executive Order
…
  • The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has scheduled for March 19 the oral argument on the appeals
…

When in January I offered my predictions as to the issues that the new FCC would be considering this year, payola and musical artists complaining of being coerced to play for free at radio station concerts or other events was not on the bingo card.  That changed early this past week when Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn sent a letter to FCC Chair Brendan Carr stating that she had received many complaints from musical artists complaining that they were being coerced to play for free at radio station events with threats that, if they did not participate, on-air play of their music would be reduced. 

The Senator’s letter suggested that this was a violation of the FCC’s payola rules that prohibit broadcasters from making programming decisions based on the receipt of anything of value for airplay without disclosing that consideration on the air.  The letter’s implication is that receipt of the artist’s concert appearance for free would constitute the consideration and, if that consideration was not disclosed when increased airplay occurred, the station would be in violation of the payola policies.  The letter suggested that the FCC take action to ensure that such coercive tactics were not used to secure  free appearances by musicians at radio station events.  In what seems like record time, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau responded to the Senator’s letter by issuing an Enforcement Advisory about the issue.  What does that Advisory provide and what are the FCC’s policies payola and sponsorship identification?Continue Reading FCC Enforcement Advisory Warns of Payola Concerns in Coercing Bands to Play at Broadcast Station Events with Threats of Decreased Airplay – and Reminds All Broadcasters, Radio and TV, of Sponsorship Identification Requirements

  • Payola on broadcast stations suddenly was in the news this past week.  Early in the week, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
…