Advertising Issues

Subscribe to Advertising Issues via RSS

Last week, we wrote about two dissenting opinions in a Supreme Court decision that highlight the debate that is underway on the principles that govern defamation liability in the United States.  While we are reviewing Supreme Court decisions that could have an impact on broadcasters, including on political advertising, we thought that we should highlight another decision of the Supreme Court, a case called Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Attorney General of California, that could have an even more direct effect on the political advertising disclosure obligations of broadcasters.  In that case, the Court struck down a California requirement that charities operating in California reveal to the state their major donors.  Even though the state was supposed to keep this information confidential, the Court felt that the potential for disclosure of the contributors to groups dealing with controversial issues could chill their willingness to donate to the charitable groups, due to fears of repercussions should their donations become public (thus, in effect, creating a restraint on their First Amendment right to free association).  But could this decision have a wider impact on First Amendment rights and potentially affect disclosure obligations about contributions used for political advertising?

At least one commentator, George Will, seemed to think so.  In a column that he wrote last week, he suggests that supporters of the DISCLOSE Act (we wrote about a similar bill introduced 5 years ago here) should be worried  about its constitutionality in light of this Supreme Court decision.  If creating fears about the repercussions of donations to charitable organizations is seen as constitutionally suspect, a court could draw a similar conclusion about donations to political speech organizations.  The Supreme Court’s decision does acknowledge that the government could justify narrowly tailored disclosure obligations that advanced an important government interest, and the Court has, in the past, upheld disclosure obligations for contributors to political campaigns.  But would today’s Court see things the same way?  Would it make distinctions between disclosures of donations directly to campaigns (which have been upheld in the past where they could be seen as being linked to an attempt to buy influence with a candidate) versus  donations to third-party organizations that may engage in political speech, including support or opposition to candidates, which the Court might view  as the donors exercise of its free speech rights (as were the political expenditures by corporations in the Citizen’s United case – see our articles here and here)?  Time will tell how the ramifications of the Court’s decision will play out.
Continue Reading Could a Supreme Court Decision Affect Disclosure Obligations on Political Advertising?

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

  • This week all but ends analog television operations in the US. The FCC’s Media Bureau reminded all low power television

…

For well over 50 years, the Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan decision has governed the principles applied by the courts when assessing any claim of defamation.  That standard requires that, to find a statement about a public figure to be defamatory, not only does the statement need to be false, but it also needs to have been conveyed with “actual malice.” The Sullivan decision generally defines actual malice as writing or publishing an incorrect harmful statement knowing that the statement was false, or with reckless disregard as to whether the statement was true or not.  See our articles here and here, on this standard.  Because of this standard, the vast majority of defamation cases against public figures cannot be sustained, as it can rarely be proven that a defendant knew or should have known that a statement about a public figure was untrue.

In the recent past, there have been calls for this standard to be revisited.  Former President Trump was a big critic of the policy, thinking that he should have a greater ability to successfully sue media outlets over his claims of “fake news.”  Earlier this year, a prominent US Court of Appeals judge suggested that the doctrine should be abolished, using his dissenting opinion (at the end of this decision) to rail against big media companies and what he perceived to be their liberal bias.  This past week, two Supreme Court justices, Thomas and Gorsuch, issued dissenting opinions arguing that the Sullivan standard should change, in a case in which the Court decided not to review a lower court’s finding that a defamation case was precluded by the application of the Sullivan standards.  Justice Thomas has made this argument before (prior case here, new dissent here), but the dissenting opinion of Justice Gorsuch was the first time that he officially went on record calling for a modification of the standard.
Continue Reading Two Supreme Court Justices Try to Ignite Debate on Defamation Standards – What A Change Would Mean for Broadcasters News and Political Ad Sales

According to press reports (see this story in Verge and this one in the Washington Post), Facebook will end its policy of not subjecting posts by elected officials to the same level of scrutiny by its Oversight Board that it applies to other users of its platform.  Facebook’s announced policy has been that the newsworthiness of posts by politicians and elected officials was such that it outweighed Facebook’s uniform application of its Community Standards – though it did make exceptions for calls to violence and questions of election integrity, and where posts linked to other offending content.  Just a year ago, there were calls for Facebook to take more aggressive steps to police misinformation on its platforms. These calls grew out of the debate over the need to revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which insulates online platforms from liability for posts by unrelated parties on those platforms (see our article here on Section 230). Last year, we compared Facebook’s policy with the laws that apply to other communications platforms, including broadcasters and cable companies.  In light of the potential change in Facebook’s policy, we thought it would be worth revisiting that analysis now.  Here is what we wrote last year:

[In January 2020], the New York Times ran an article seemingly critical of Facebook for not rejecting ads  from political candidates that contained false statements of fact.  We have already written that this policy of Facebook matches the policy that Congress has imposed on broadcast stations and local cable franchisees who sell time to political candidates – they cannot refuse an ad from a candidate’s authorized campaign committee based on its content – even if it is false or even defamatory (see our posts here and here for more on the FCC’s “no censorship” rule that applies to broadcasting and local cable systems).  As this Times article again raises this issue, we thought that we should again provide a brief recap of the rules that apply to broadcast and local cable political ad sales, and contrast these rules to those that currently apply to online advertising.
Continue Reading Reports that Facebook Will End Policy of Not Censoring Politician’s Posts – How Other Communications Platforms are Regulated on Political Speech

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

  • In a speech to the Media Institute, FCC Commissioner Starks spoke of the importance of diversity in media ownership and

…

Next week, I will be discussing regulatory issues for media companies with Eriq Gardner of the Hollywood Reporter (who covers legal issues on their must-read THR, Esq site) in a “Candid Conversation” hosted by Matrix Solutions (more information here, including a registration link).  The sponsor of this conversation consults on media advertising matters, so the content will likely be geared toward the impact of changes on the advertising industry.  While the conversation will cover structural media regulation issues, like broadcast ownership, the relationship between television and various multichannel video providers (both traditional, like cable and satellite television, and online), and similar matters, I think one of most interesting topics will be a discussion of the proposed regulation of tech platforms.  In thinking about that issue (about which we have written many times, including recent articles here and here), it occurs to me that such regulation could have a huge impact on the digital and social media giants that have arisen in the modern media world.

Much has been written, particularly in recent days, about the antitrust regulation to which these tech giants may be subject – with calls for action from both the political right and left (see, for instance, this article drawing parallels between the books recently written about this subject by Amy Klobuchar and Josh Hawley).  Even if such sweeping changes are not adopted, there are more targeted regulatory proposals that could have a direct impact on the advertising on these online platforms.  As we have noted before, advertising on online platforms is now estimated to constitute over 50% of the local advertising sales in virtually every geographic market.  Certainly, privacy regulation limiting the ability of companies to track users across various online platforms could affect such sales.  Less publicized has been the impact of Section 230 reform, which in at least one bill would exempt advertising from the protections afforded companies for the online content that they host.
Continue Reading Regulation of Online Platforms and the Effect on Advertising – Including Section 230 Reforms

Last week, the NY Times ran an interesting article, here, about how many old TV programs now available on streaming services are missing music that was featured on the original broadcast.  This was because when the music rights were initially purchased,  their use was limited to over-the-air broadcasts or was limited to a short period of time, with the producers never envisioning that the programs would be available through on-demand streaming services decades after they originally aired on over-the-air television.  While not mentioned in the article, for many radio broadcasters one of the series most missed on streaming services is the industry favorite WKRP in Cincinnati.  That series took forever to get to digital outlets, and still does not appear to be on any subscription streaming service, reportedly because of music rights issues.  This article and the issues that it highlights should be a warning not just to TV producers, but also to anyone planning to use music in audio or video productions – including podcasts and online videos – that clearing music rights is essential to insure that these productions can be fully exploited  not only when they are first made available, but also in the future if they are repurposed for other platforms.

We have written before (see, for example, our articles here and here) about the need to get permission from the copyright holders in both the musical work (or musical composition – the words and music to a song) and in the sound recording (or master recording – the song as recorded by a particular band or singer).  Just signing up with a performing rights organization (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or GMR) is not enough because, while podcasts may involve the public performances of the musical works that these organizations license, they do not give rights to make the permanent fixed copies of those songs, synchronized with other audio in the podcast, that can be accessed and downloaded on demand.  These uses require the additional copyrights to reproduce and distribute music, and arguably to make derivative works, that can only be obtained from the copyright holder (see our article here describing why the PRO license itself does not give all rights needed to use music in podcasts).   Similarly, the rights to the sound recording must also be obtained from the copyright holder in the recording – and payments to SoundExchange do not cover the on-demand music uses involved in a podcast.  Thus, when the necessary rights are not obtained from the copyright holders, we have seen podcasts go silent after infringement claims are brought or threatened (see our article here).
Continue Reading Missing Music On Streamed TV Programs Highlights Rights Issues for Podcasters and Video Producers

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

  • At the FCC’s regular monthly Open Meeting, the Commissioners voted to adopt new rules mandating sponsorship identification of foreign government-provided

…

Earlier this week, we highlighted a letter sent last week from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo asking the FCC to review CALM Act compliance.  The letter noted that the FCC has received thousands of complaints about loud commercials in the decade that the law has been in effect without having taken any enforcement action.  The FCC wasted no time in reacting, with Media Bureau issuing a request late Monday for comments on the current rules which implement the law and whether changes to those rules are needed.  Comments are due June 3, 2021, with reply comments due by July 9.

The CALM Act (the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act) was passed in 2011 due to the perception of many in Congress that the volume of commercials on broadcast, cable and satellite television was far higher than that in the programming that surrounded the commercials.  After the legislation was passed, the FCC adopted rules to implement the Act (which we described here).  Those rules were principally based on compliance with a set of ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) recommended practices, to be enforced through a complaint-driven system. The FCC has updated those rules once (when ATSC updated its recommended practices – see our article here).  The FCC now asks if those rules should be revisited to make them more effective in combatting the perceived problem of loud commercials.
Continue Reading FCC Being Anything but CALM About Congressional Letter – Asks for Public Comments on CALM Act Enforcement

As we highlighted yesterday in our weekly summary of regulatory issues for broadcasters, last week saw a letter from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo to the FCC asking for the FCC to review the enforcement of the rules established by the CALM Act, which prohibits loud commercials on TV stations.  The letter cites news reports of thousands of complaints annually to the FCC since the rule’s adoption in 2012 without there ever having been an enforcement action against a station for any violation.  When the CALM Act was passed by Congress, there were many industry questions about how that law could be enforced, as there are many subjective judgments in assessing whether a commercial is louder than the program into which it is inserted (see our article here).  But, ultimately, the FCC adopted rules that were based on industry standards and most parties seemed to believe that they were workable (see our article here about the adoption of those rules).  Like many FCC rules, the CALM Act rules are complaint-driven, and even the article cited by Congresswoman Eshoo recognized the difficulty in assessing the merits of any complaint.

Nevertheless, with this letter and the publicity that it has received in the broadcast trade press, TV stations should carefully review their compliance with the CALM Act rules, as this publicity could signal that the FCC will turn its attention to this issue in the coming months.  In fact, with a Commission that is currently evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans until the vacant seat on the Commission is filled, enforcement of existing FCC rules may well be one place where the current Commission will turn its attention while more controversial (and potentially partisan) rule changes await FCC action.
Continue Reading Congressional Letter to FCC on CALM Act Violations Puts Focus on FCC Enforcement Issues