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

  • FCC Chairman Carr sent a letter to NPR and PBS announcing that he has asked the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to

Yesterday, the new FCC Chairman Brendan Carr sent a letter to NPR and PBS announcing that he has asked the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to launch an investigation into their advertising practices – suggesting without specifics that these entities had gone beyond the permitted underwriting announcements by airing prohibited advertisements for commercial products and services (Commissioner Starks and Gomez issued statements questioning the basis for this investigation).  While the Chairman’s letter was vague on specifics, and unclear as to whether there were specific listener or viewer complaints that triggered the investigation (which is how the FCC typically initiates an investigation into a broadcaster’s regulatory compliance ), the letter does suggest that all noncommercial broadcast stations, including all LPFM stations and other full-power stations not affiliated with NPR or PBS, should examine their practices to ensure that they comply with the FCC’s underwriting policies. 

What do these rules require?  Noncommercial stations can air acknowledgments of those making financial contributions to stations, but the identification of such sponsors must be limited – you can give their name, a general description of what their business is and where they are located, but such information must be provided in an objective, non-promotional manner. FCC standards prohibit calls to action (e.g., “visit this store,” “come on down”), inducements to buy (e.g., “we have a two for one special,” “mention the station and you’ll get a discount on all that you buy”), price information (e.g., “tickets only $29.99” or “this week, we have our end-of-year sale” or “10% senior discounts”) or qualitative claims (“the best pizza in town,” “quality merchandise and a friendly staff”).  We have written many articles on these issues (see, for instance, articles herehere and here) and the fines that have arisen when the rules were not followed.  Continue Reading As FCC Chairman Announces an Investigation into Alleged PBS and NPR Advertising, a Look at the Underwriting Requirements for All Noncommercial Broadcast Stations

Washington DC is not the only place where there are regulatory or political decisions made that affect broadcasters and advertising for candidates or political issues.  We’ve written many times about state laws that govern the use of AI in political advertising, with more than 20 states already having laws on their books and more considering such legislation in legislative sessions this year (see our articles here and here).  We have also noted that there are a number of states that have laws requiring media companies, including digital media companies, to keep records of political advertising sales and, in some cases, to make those records available to the public (see, for example, our article here).  While there are few federal elections in 2025, there are state and local elections in many states – and most of these laws are targeted to those state and local elections, so broadcast stations and cable systems regulated by the FCC need to be aware of these state laws.  But most of these laws reach far beyond FCC-regulated entities and apply to digital and even print media – so all companies need to be paying attention to their requirements.  And a number of recent actions highlight these concerns.

No state has been as active in enforcing such requirements as Washington State.  In a December decision seemingly overlooked by much of the trade press, the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld a decision fining Facebook parent company Meta $24.6 million for its failure to comply with the extensive political disclosure rules adopted by that state.  This decision upheld a summary judgement by a state trial court finding Meta liable for a $24.6 million penalty for violating the state’s public disclosure rules that apply to political advertising (for more on the trial court decision, see our article here). Continue Reading Washington State Court of Appeals Upholds $24.6 Million Penalty Against Meta for Not Meeting State Political Advertising Disclosure Requirements – A Warning to All Media Companies to Assess and Comply with State Political Disclosure Rules

Mitchell Stabbe, our resident trademark law specialist, today takes his annual look at the legal issues in Super Bowl advertising and promotions (see some of his past articles herehere, and here).  Take it away, Mitch:  

As a life-long fan of the Baltimore Ravens (the life of the Ravens, not my life), my interest in the Super Bowl XVII has waned a bit.  The opposite is true for those who seek to profit from the playing of the game.  Accordingly, following are updated guidelines about engaging in or accepting advertising or promotions that directly or indirectly reference the Super Bowl without a license from the NFL.  But, first, a trivia question.  Who won Super Bowl I.  (Answer at end)

The Super Bowl means big bucks.

There are currently four primary television networks that broadcast and stream NFL games in the United States (CBS/Paramount+, Fox, ABC/ESPN/ESPN+ and NBC/Peacock).  It is estimated that, with the new contract which took effect last year, each will pay the NFL an average of over $2 billion per year for those rights through 2032, including the right to broadcast the Super Bowl on a rotating basis.

The investment seems to pay off for the networks.  Reportedly, it will cost more than $8 Million for some of the 30-second spots during this year’s Super Bowl broadcast, up from last year.  It has also been reported that last year’s game brought in advertising revenue totaling more than the $600 M from the prior year (with as much as an additional $60 million from ads run when last year’s game went into overtime).  These figures do not include income from ads during any pre-game or post-game programming.  (In addition to the sums paid to have their commercials aired, some advertisers spend millions of dollars to produce an ad.)  In addition, the NFL receives hundreds of millions of dollars from licensing the use of the SUPER BOWL trademark and logo.

Given the value of the Super Bowl franchise, it is not surprising that the NFL is extremely aggressive in protecting its golden goose from anything it views as unauthorized efforts to trade off the goodwill associated with the mark or the game.  Accordingly, with the coin toss almost upon us, advertisers should take special care before publishing or engaging in advertising or other promotional activities that refer to the Super Bowl.  Broadcasters and news publishers have greater latitude than other businesses, but still need to be wary of engaging in activities that the NFL may view as trademark or copyright infringement.  (These risks also apply to other named sporting events, for example, making use of the phrases “Final Four” or “March Madness” in connection with the annual NCAA Basketball Tournament.)Continue Reading 2025 Update on Super Bowl Advertising and Promotions

As 2024 comes to an end, 2025 is beginning to come into focus – a new year that will likely bring big changes to the Washington broadcast regulation scene with the inauguration of a new President and installation of a new FCC chair who has already promised to move forward with policies very different than those of the current administration (see our discussion here and here).  But while we are waiting for the big changes that may occur, there are many more mundane dates and issues to which broadcasters need to pay attention.  Let’s look at what is coming up in the next month.

Broadcasters need to remember that January 10 is the deadline for all full power and Class A TV stations, and full power AM and FM radio stations, both commercial and noncommercial, to upload to their Online Public Inspection Files their Quarterly Issues/Program lists for the fourth quarter of 2024.  The lists should identify the issues of importance to the station’s community and the programs that the station aired between October 1 and December 31, 2024, 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.Continue Reading January 2025 Regulatory Updates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Children’s Television Programming Reporting, Expansion of Audio Description Requirements, Political Windows, and More

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 announced that comments and reply comments are due December 13 and 18, respectively, in response to

With much of everyone’s focus on the outcome of the November 5 general election, broadcasters can’t forget the regulatory dates and deadlines in November and early December.  While the dates and deadlines in November are lighter than in many other months, many routine deadlines do fall in early December, and even the upcoming month does have dates worthy of note. 

The one broadly applicable deadline for AM stations that does fall early in the upcoming month is November 3, when Daylight Savings Time ends.  AM daytime-only radio stations, Am stations with different daytime and nighttime patterns, and those operating with pre-sunrise and/or post-sunset authority should check their sign-on and sign-off times on their current FCC authorizations to ensure continued compliance with the FCC’s rules.  Broadcasters need to note that all times listed in FCC licenses are stated in standard time, not daylight savings time even if it is in effect.

For television stations, there is a deadline later in the month. November 26 is the deadline for television stations to provide an aural description of visual but non-textual emergency information, such as maps or other graphic displays, conveyed outside of station newscasts.  This would include maps showing severe weather and other graphic depictions of emergency information during non-news programming.  Since 2013, stations must make textual information about emergency conditions that occur during non-newscast video programming (such as textual crawls about emergency conditions) audibly accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired through having the textual information presented aurally on the station’s SAP channel – the secondary audio channel.  The 2013 rules required that visual maps and other non-textual information also be described on SAP channels but, as we discussed in articles here, here, and here, the FCC has extended this deadline numerous times because of the unavailability of workable technology that can automatically perform the functions required by the rule.  By the November 26 deadline, stations will either need to provide aural information about non-textual emergency information that runs outside of a newscast, or avoid airing such graphical alerts during non-news programming, or hope that there are new requests for FCC relief before the looming deadline.Continue Reading November 2024 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters: AM Stations Need to Adjust to the End of Daylight Savings Time, Deadline for Aural Description of Visual Emergency Alerts for TV, Final Rules for FM Zonecasting, and More

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 National Association of Broadcasters denounced recent threats to revoke broadcast station licenses for political reasons, stating: “The threat from

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 announcing the opening of a filing window for construction permits for new

With less than a month to go before the November election, we can expect more and more attack ads, some of which may lead to cease and desist letters from the candidate being attacked.  These letters can raise the risk of defamation claims against broadcasters and cable companies when the ads are not bought by candidates.  The use of artificial intelligence in such ads raises the prospect of even nastier attack ads, and its use raises a whole host of legal issues beyond defamation worries, though it raises those too (see our article here on defamation concerns about AI generated content, and our articles herehere and here about other potential FCC and state law liability arising from such ads – note that since our last article on state AI laws, there are now over 20 states with AI laws I place).  Given the potential for a nasty election season getting even nastier, we thought that we would revisit our warning about broadcasters needing to assess the content of attack ads – particularly those from non-candidate groups. 

As we have written before, Section 315 of the Communications Act forbids broadcasters (and local cable companies) from editing the message of a candidate or rejecting that ad based on what is says except in extreme circumstances where the ad itself would violate a federal criminal law and possibly if it contains a false EAS alert (see, for instance, our articles herehere and here).  Because broadcasters cannot censor candidate ads, the Supreme Court has ruled that broadcasters are immune from any liability for the content of those ads.  (Note that this protection applies only to over-the-air broadcasters and local cable companies – the no censorship rule does not apply to cable networks or online distribution – see our articles here and here)  Other protections, such as Section 230, may apply to candidate ads placed on online platforms, but the circumstances in which the ad became part of the program offering need to be considered. Continue Reading Broadcasters Should Evaluate Attack Ads for Liability Concerns in the Final Weeks Before the November Election