FCC Fines

Subscribe to FCC Fines via RSS

In a case just released by the FCC, a broadcaster was fined for enforcing a non-compete agreement that was entered into when a broadcaster sold one of its stations in a market in and agreed that it would not compete in the same format if it ever acquired another station in the same market.  The agreement had prohibited the Seller from competing with the Buyer in a news-talk format.  After the closing of the sale of the station, the Seller acquired another station in the market and adopted a format that a local court found was covered by the non-compete clause in the contract.  The local court issued an injunction against the continuation of the news-talk format.  At that point, the Seller filed a complaint with the FCC, arguing that, by obtaining the injunction, the Buyer had engaged in an unauthorized assumption of control of the station covered by the injunction, without FCC approval.  The FCC agreed with the Seller, and fined the Buyer $8000 for exercising control over the station that Seller had bought.

The FCC’s reasoning in this case, citing a similar letter decision from 2006, is that the restriction on format impedes a licensee’s control over its own programming, and restricts its ability to adjust its operations to account for changing market conditions.  The Commission concluded that, barring the licensee from utilizing a particular format, even for the limited period of the non-compete agreement, was contrary to the public interest.  By obtaining the injunction to prevent the Seller from using the news-talk format, the Buyer had impermissibly exercised control over the station that it had already sold.  In fact, the Commission went further, and found that the exercise of control over the programming, personnel or finances of the station would be a violation of the rules.  Continue Reading Format Noncompete Agreements Can Lead to FCC Fine

In a decision released last week, the FCC imposed a fine of $4000 on a broadcaster licensed to a community in the state of Arkansas for airing an advertisement for the Missouri State Lottery.  In this case, a station licensed to Arkansas ran a remote broadcast from a store in Missouri.  During the course of the remote, the on-air announcer invited listeners to come to the store and made some not-too-subtle remarks implying that, when they did, they could buy Missouri lottery tickets.  As there is a statutory provision prohibiting a station located in one state from running an ad for a lottery in another state if its own state does not have a lottery, the Commission issued this fine.

This ban is based on a statute passed  by Congress, and approved by a Supreme Court decision 15 years ago – finding a compelling state interest in protecting the citizens of states that ban gambling from allowing stations in their states from advertising that prohibited activity.  Of course, in many cases, a station licensed to one state may be heard (and may in fact be physically located) in another state.  Even so, the city of license is what counts – so a station has to observe the laws of that state.  In some cases, that can mean that there are different rules that apply to different stations in the same cluster (and possibly located in the same building, with advertising being sold by the same sales people).Continue Reading No State Lottery in Your State? – No Gambling Ads Even For a State Lottery In a Nearby State

In a Consent Decree released this week, the Commission agreed to accept a "voluntary contribution" of $16,500 to the government from a tower owner, instead of a fine, for its failure to conduct an Historical Review of the locations of three towers prior to their construction.  Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement which implements the National Historic Preservation…

In two decisions released this week by the FCC, here and here, two large broadcast group owners were admonished for failures to comply with the FCC’s EEO rules. In both cases, failures to widely disseminate information about job openings in one market were discovered by the FCC in the course of random EEO audits that selected these stations for review. In both cases, the Commission determined that the violations were serious, and imposed reporting conditions (essentially subjecting the stations to an FCC audit of their EEO annual public file reports every year for the next 3 years). And in each case, the FCC would have fined the stations for their violations, but the Commission moved too slow, as in both cases, license renewals were granted between the time of the violations and the EEO audit.  Under provisions of the Communications Act, the Commission cannot fine a station for action that occurred during a prior renewal term – so the grant of the renewals cut off the possibility of a fine in these cases.

These actions highlight the importance of complying with the Commission’s EEO rules, which we have summarized in our EEO Guide, here. In particular, in both cases, the station groups had not widely disseminated information about job openings, as required by the rules. Wide dissemination requires the use of recruitment sources designed to reach all groups within a community to allow their members to learn about the job openings at the station. The Commission’s aim is to bring into the broadcast workforce employees representing diverse groups within a community rather than hiring all their employees from traditional broadcast sources.  In these cases, the stations had used only corporate websites, on-air announcements, and word of mouth recruiting. No outside sources, or sources reasonably likely to reach the entire community, were used by the broadcasters, hence the admonition and the reporting conditions. Continue Reading What a Difference A Renewal Makes – FCC Admonishes Two Broadcasters for EEO Violations, Fines Would Have Followed if Renewals Had Not Recently Been Granted

In two decisions (here and here) released last week, the FCC fined broadcasters $3200 and $2400 after inspections of the stations revealed that the licenses for their Studio Transmitter Link ("STL") did not list the proper location for these stations.  In both cases, it appeared that the stations had changed their studio…

In a decision last week, the FCC fined a radio station $4000 for broadcasting the message from someone’s telephone answering machine without permission.  The FCC’s rules forbid the broadcast of a telephone call without permission (and the recording of a phone call for broadcast without permission).  So, a station violates the rule when a caller says…

This week, after a long period when we saw little in the way of indecency enforcement by the FCC, the Commission issued two orders compelling payment of fines for television programs broadcast in 2003.  The Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (an order proposing a fine) only a few weeks ago asking ABC affiliates to respond to a potential indecency violation in connection with an NYPD Blue episode run in February 2003 (see our description of the proposed fines here and here).  Only a week after the submission of arguments against the proposed fine made by the cited affiliates in a 75 page response to the Notice of Apparent Liability, the FCC issued its order rejecting the arguments against the fines – an unheard of speed in issuing a decision.  Each station involved was fined $27,500.  Then, later in the week, the FCC issued an Order which fined a number of Fox affiliates $7000 each for perceived indecency violations in an episode of the Married By America reality television program, also broadcast in 2003 – following up on a Notice of Apparent Liability issued over two years ago by the FCC.  In one case, an incredibly quick action resulting in a large fine against many stations – in another a smaller fine against far fewer stations.  Why the differences?

The reason for fines coming now was that, in both cases, the 5 year statute of limitations was coming to an end and, if the Commission did not quickly act, it would be precluded from doing so.  In both cases, the Commission determined that it would fine only stations against which complaints were filed.  In the case of Married by America, the Commission had sent a notice of Apparent Liability to 169 stations, but ended up fining only 13 against which actual complaints had been filed.  In contrast, the Commission fined 45 stations for the NYPD Blue episode, even though the "complaints" were in many cases filed months after the program aired on the stations, and even though many of the "complaints" did not even allege that the local viewer had actually seen the program for which the fine was issued.  Instead, many of the complaints were apparently initiated by an on-line campaign urging that the people write the FCC to complain about the program – even if they hadn’t necessarily seen it.  In its decision, the Commission concluded that the fines were appropriate – even without specific allegations that the program was watched by the people who complained.Continue Reading A Tale of Two Indecency Decisions – FCC Issues Fines for Married by America and NYPD Blue

We recently wrote about the Notice of Apparent Liability for violation of the FCC’s indecency rules that was issued last week by the Federal Communications Commission, proposing to fine 52 ABC network affiliates $27,500 each.  This $1.4 million fine was suggested by the FCC for alleged violations which occurred almost 5 years ago in a broadcast of the…

This week, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives to make a single use of an expletive on a broadcast station subject to sanctions from the FCC.  This parallels legislation that was introduced in the Senate this summer, about which we wrote, here.  The point of this legislation is to overturn the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which held that the FCC could not levy indecency fines on stations for airing a single isolated "fleeting expletive". As we wrote when the Senate Bill was introduced, the Second Circuit decision overturning the FCC’s fines was technically based, not on constitutional issues, but instead on the fact that the FCC had not rationally defended the distinctions that it made as to when to impose fines for the use of an expletive, and when to allow the use of the expletives without sanction (as in the airing of Saving Private Ryan).  The Court also faulted the Commission for not providing guidelines as to what was indecent and what was that were clear enough to alert a broadcaster as to what was permitted and what was not.  When a decision is based on an administrative failure to rationally justify its decision, Congress can pass a law providing that justification.  Here, that would give the FCC permission to fine a broadcaster for the use of a single expletive.  If the decision was constitutionally based, finding that the regulation of the use of fleeting expletives was unconstitutional, then the ability of Congress to pass a law permitting FCC action that the Court found was unconstitutional is severely limited.

However, while not basing the decision on constitutional grounds, the Second Circuit decision did go out of its way to question the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency enforcement, but deciding that it did not need to decide the issue of constitutionality as it had already thrown out the FCC fines.  While the Second Circuit passed on that issue, another court may well reach the constitutional question in the near future.  On September 11, the Third Circuit, the same Court which invalidated many of the FCC’s 2003 liberalized multiple ownership rules, heard arguments on the FCC’s $550,000 fine imposed on the CBS owned-and-operated television stations for the Janet Jackson breast-baring Super Bowl incident.   CBS, represented by an attorney from our firm, argued that the FCC’s indecency rules are unconstitutional.  The Court seemed engaged in the issue, according to press reports, asking many questions.  As the briefs have been filed and the arguments made, the Court decision could come at any time.  Sometimes these decisions can be released quickly, though at other times the final decision can take many months to be written.  Broadcasters will have to wait for this further clarification.Continue Reading Congress Tries to Overturn Second Circuit While Third Circuit Hears Janet Jackson Indecency Case, and “The War” Is Censored