Advertising Issues

Subscribe to Advertising Issues via RSS

The Trump administration recently announced that it was taking steps to legalize some marijuana use under federal law.  In a Press Release from the Department of Justice, much was made of the relaxation of the marijuana rules – and many headlines trumpeted the action as if all marijuana use that has been “legalized” by state governments was now legal under federal law.  But a close reading of the accompanying Order released by the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration reveals that the actions have only moved medical marijuana legalized in any state from Schedule I (those drugs with no approved uses that are not permitted to be sold or distributed in almost any circumstance), to Schedule III (drugs that have approved uses and can be distributed under rules set out by the FDA).  Non-medical marijuana, so-called “recreational marijuana” approved in many states, remains on Schedule I.  We have written many times (see, for instance, our articles here and here) about concerns with advertising marijuana on a federally-licensed broadcast station when marijuana was on Schedule I and its sale, possession and marketing, including broadcast and other advertising, constituted a felony under federal law even when “legal” under state law.  The recent action to legalize state-approved medical marijuana may, over time, lead to legal advertising, but it appears that there are still hurdles that remain.

Before looking at the steps that appear to be needed before legal advertising of marijuana is possible, there are a couple of things that readers should keep in mind.  First, we need to emphasize that the Trump administration’s actions affect only FDA-approved marijuana products (of which there are very few currently) and medical marijuana that is distributed and sold subject to a state medical marijuana license.  Recreational marijuana remains on Schedule I with no approved medical uses, and with advertising and distribution prohibited outside of some very limited, federally approved testing.  So, all of the concerns about advertising recreational marijuana continue – and are perhaps amplified by the decision to retain recreational marijuana on Schedule I.

Continue Reading Medical Marijuana Removed from Schedule I – Moving Closer to Broadcast and Online Advertising but Concerns Still Remain
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice requesting comment on the TV Parental Guidelines ratings system.  In 1996, Congress
…
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice purporting to remind broadcasters about their lowest unit charge (LUC) obligations for
…

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…

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? 
…

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