Advertising Issues

Subscribe to Advertising Issues via RSS

This has been an unusual political year, as the number of political broadcasting legal issues that have arisen seems far smaller than in past election cycles. Perhaps broadcasters are all on top of the issues this year, or maybe the questions that often arise in connection with attack ads simply pale in comparison to some of the non-advertising attacks that take place every day in the news and on other political-themed broadcast and cable programming. But one question that has come up repeatedly in these last few weeks before the election has been one about local candidates – usually running for state or municipal offices – who appear in advertisements for local businesses that they own or manage. Often times, these individuals will routinely appear in a business’ ads outside of election season, and the candidate simply wants to continue to appear on their business’ ads during the election as well. What is a station to do?

While we have many times written about what happens when a broadcast station’s on-air employee runs for office (see, for instance, our articles here, here and here), we have addressed the question less often about the advertiser who is also a candidate. If a candidate’s recognizable voice or, for TV, image appears on a broadcast station in a way that is not negative (e.g. it is not in an ad attacking that candidate), outside of an exempt program (in other words outside of a news or news interview program which, as we wrote here, is a very broad category of programming) that appearance is a “use” by the political candidate. That includes “uses” even well outside the political sphere, so Arnold Schwarzenegger movies were pulled from TV when he was running for office, as were any re-runs of The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice featuring Donald Trump. So, an appearance by a candidate in a commercial for his or her local business is a “use” which needs to be included in a station’s political file (providing all the information about the sponsor, schedule and price of the ad that you would for any pure political buy). But that does not necessarily mean that a station needs to pull the ad from the air.
Continue Reading What to do When a Local Political Candidate Appears in a Spot Advertisement for a Commercial Business

Earlier this week, our friends at the broadcast and digital media consulting and research firm Jacobs Media posted an article on their blog called “What Could Possibly Go Wrong,” dealing with the financial and reputational issues that can arise if a contest is not fully thought out. That article reminded me of all of the legal issues that we have written about over the years that can arise if all of the issues with a broadcast contest are not carefully considered. Those potential issues range from the an FCC fine if the contest is not conducted as advertised, to the threat of civil liability if the contest results in an injury to a contestant or observer. I thought that I would highlight some of the articles that we have written in the past to remind broadcasters of those potential liabilities.

On the FCC side, the FCC has always been a stickler on the rules, requiring that broadcasters, when conducting their own on-air contests, announce the rules of those contests and to follow those rules as announced. While that burden has become somewhat lighter in the last year as the FCC has allowed stations to publicize the material rules of a contest on a station’s website rather than having to announce them on the air (as long as the on-line location of those rules is itself publicized sufficiently on air, see our post here), that rule change has not affected the underlying obligation of a broadcaster to conduct the contest as announced, in accordance with the contest’s announced rules.
Continue Reading What Could Possibly Go Wrong With a Broadcast Contest? – From the Legal Side

There is nothing new about the FTC bringing enforcement actions based on deceptive advertising practices.  Those cases are the FTC’s bread and butter.  But in recent years the FTC has been pushing forward with cases that address the increasingly complex network of entities involved in marketing, including companies that collect, buy, and sell consumer information and play other behind-the-scenes roles in marketing campaigns.  The FTC has also taken a strong interest in deceptively formatted advertising, including “native” advertising that does not adequately disclose sponsorship connections.  A recent Court of Appeals decision highlights the potential for any internet company to be liable for a deceptive advertising campaign that it had a hand in orchestrating – even if the company itself does not create the advertising material.

The decision in this case, FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC, comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and is a significant victory for the FTC and its co-plaintiff, the State of Connecticut.  Specifically, the decision holds that online advertising company LeadClick is liable for the deceptive ads that were published as part an advertising campaign that it coordinated, even though LeadClick itself did not write or publish the ads.  In addition, the Second Circuit rejected LeadClick’s argument that its ad tracking service provided it with immunity from the FTC’s action under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
Continue Reading Second Circuit Holds Marketing Campaign Organizer Liable Under FTC Act for Deceptive Representations of Its Marketing “Affiliates”

It’s election season, and for the 60 days before any general election, broadcast stations are required to charge political candidates the “lowest unit rate” for comparable advertising time that runs on their stations. That means that, for each class of advertising time on any particular station, the candidate can only be charged the lowest…

Last week’s letter from the FDA detailing its position that there should be no change in marijuana being classified as a Schedule I drug under Federal law reinforces the fact that, under Federal law, the drug is still illegal – no matter what certain states may do to legalize or decriminalize its use. As the FDA’s decision emphasizes that the sale and distribution of the drug is still not permitted under Federal law, we thought that we would rerun the advice that we gave to broadcasters – Federal licensees – about running advertising for marijuana. As we said in February when we first ran this article, advertising for marijuana is still a concern.  Here is what we said in February:

Broadcasters, like other federally regulated industries, continue to be leery about advertising for marijuana, even in states where cannabis dispensaries have been legalized for medical or even recreational use.  This week, the NY Times ran an article about companies trying to provide ways for dispensaries to use electronic payment systems, as federally regulated banks and credit card companies often refuse to deal with these businesses.  This is despite guidance given by the Department of Justice to banks about how to handle funds coming from such organizations.  Where the federal regulator (the FCC) has provided no advice whatsoever, broadcasters as regulated entities need to be very restrained in their desires to run ads for these dispensaries that appear to be legal under state laws.
Continue Reading FDA Continues to Schedule Marijuana as a Schedule I Drug – Doing Nothing to Clarify the Still Murky State of Broadcast Advertising

With the national presidential conventions complete, and most of the state primaries for Congressional, state and local offices either behind us or to occur in the next few weeks, the most concentrated period for the purchase of political advertising on broadcast stations is now upon us, to peak in the late October/early November frenzy. While most of the principles governing the FCC rules on political broadcasting are relatively established (and many are summarized in our Political Broadcasting Guide available here), there are always new advertising practices and opportunities that throw some new wrinkle into how those rules are applied. At a number of political advertising seminars that I have conducted this past year, and in discussions with broadcasters, one of the new wrinkles this year that has not captured the attention that it deserves is the political broadcasting issues raised by programmatic buying of advertising time.

In the last year or two, programmatic buying has become the buzzword in broadcast advertising circles for both radio and TV. It is intended to make ad buying easier and more akin to the experience that ad buyers have when they place online advertising, where most of it can be done from a computer with a few clicks of a mouse, anywhere at anytime. While programmatic buying is becoming more and more common in broadcast circles, is difficult to easily say exactly what it is, as what is called “programmatic buying” comes in so many different flavors. Not only does the concept mean different things in different systems, it is also being provided by all sorts of different companies, from rep firms, to broadcast technology companies, to companies that have specialized in specific types of advertising – like remnant ad sales (i.e. sales of unsold advertising inventory that broadcasters may have). And some station owners are signing up with multiple providers – sometimes at the same station.
Continue Reading Programmatic Advertising Buying and the FCC’s Political Broadcasting Rules

A few weeks ago, we wrote here about the risks of using in advertising and promotions the Olympic trademarks, symbols or marks that may suggest an association with the Olympic Games.  The Olympic Committee recently demonstrated just how serious it is about its marks, sending a letter to non-Olympic sponsor companies, warning them  that they “may not post about the Trials or Games on their corporate social media accounts,” and may not  use the “USOC’s trademarks in hashtags such as #Rio2016 or #TeamUSA” (presumably to protect the investments of Olympic sponsors).  According to ESPN, which obtained a copy of the letter, it goes on to say that a “company whose primary mission is not media-related cannot reference any Olympic results, cannot share or repost anything from the official Olympic account and cannot use any pictures taken at the Olympics.”  Apparel company Oiselle tested the waters earlier this month by posting a photo of athlete Kate Grace after winning the 800 meters at the trials, and was promptly contacted by USOC with a request to remove the pictures (the company opted to leave the pictures up but blurred any Olympic imagery).  So while media companies have some wiggle room to cover the news from Rio, non-media companies are essentially on an Olympic-sized lockdown.

This restrictive stance did not go unnoticed by comedian Stephen Colbert, who earlier this week took the Olympic Committee to the mat with a biting parody that pokes fun at the Committee’s militant protection of its trademarks.  Colbert’s routine, available here, cleverly turns the Olympic rings into five interlocking CBS symbols and introduces the show’s new summer sponsor, MUSA TEA.  After explaining that the tea is brewed “from the freshest mint in Morocco’s Musa mountains,” he encourages fans to share with family and friends by using the hashtag #TEAMUSA.
Continue Reading Stephen Colbert Brews Up a Parody on Aggressive Protection of Olympic Trademarks

Prospective advertisers come to your station and describe their ideas for local ads. A realtor’s ad ends with “There’s no place like home.” A boat builder says he will tell buyers, “You’re going to need a bigger boat.” And, a used car salesperson wants to say “I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse.” These are pretty clever and, after all, they are everyday catchphrases, right?

Just don’t do it.

Advertising campaigns can be a source of legal liability for broadcasters when they merely allude to famous creative content that is protected under intellectual property laws. The recent decision in Lion’s Gate Entertainment, Inc. v. TD Ameritrade Services Company, Inc. demonstrates how broadcasters that publish ads containing pop culture references can run afoul of trademark rights and other legal issues.
Continue Reading Dirty Dancing with Trademark Rights: How Pop Culture References in Ads Can Raise Legal Issues