FM Radio

Subscribe to FM Radio via RSS

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

The 2026 NFL Playoffs have had more down-to-the-wire games this year than ever before.  Consequently, television viewership ratings for these extraordinarily exciting games have been extremely high and interest in the remaining games and the upcoming Super Bowl LX are expected to set records.

Consequently, the value of Super Bowl-related advertising will also be higher than ever and the NFL is therefore likely to be particularly concerned about ensuring that only authorized licensees benefit from advertisements and promotions that draw attention through the use of the SUPER BOWL® and related NFL-trademarks.  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.

More than ever, the Super Bowl means big bucks.  It is estimated that, with the new contract which took effect in 2024, the NFL will be paid an average of over $2 billion per year for broadcasting and streaming rights through 2032, including the right by different media companies to broadcast the Super Bowl on a rotating basis.Continue Reading Tiptoeing on the Sidelines: 2026 Update on Super Bowl Advertising and Promotions

  • The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Communications & Technology Subcommittee held an FCC oversight hearing.  The hearing featured written
…
  • FCC Chairman Carr announced that the FCC will be considering two orders concerning foreign ownership requirements, including those for broadcasters,
…

It’s the start of another year, so it is time to dust off the crystal ball and look at what we expect to be the big regulatory and legislative issues facing broadcasters in the new year.  Looking back on our forecast for 2025 that came out just over a year ago, I was surprised to see that we had predicted that the new Commission would be interested in defining the public interest standard, reviewing network-affiliate relations, and looking at the political biases that broadcasters allegedly exhibited.  All of these were in fact issues that came up this year but, as no conclusions were reached on any of these matters, these same issues will no doubt continue to be on the FCC’s agenda in 2026.

Public Interest Standard

Throughout 2025, FCC Chairman Carr has been talking about the public interest standard in most of his many public discussions of media regulation, and those comments have prompted much legal analysis from all corners.  We expect that, in the coming year, there will continue to be discussions about what the public interest standard really means– and just how far that standard goes in authorizing the FCC to act to regulate broadcast operations.

Network-Affiliate Relations

The FCC has also received preliminary comments on the relationship between television networks and their affiliates.  As we noted last week, reply comments were due December 29, so the pleading cycle has now closed.  In the Public Notice asking for these comments, there was a statement that the comments would be used to inform the Commission as to whether a formal rulemaking proceeding was necessary to further review the issues.  With the comments in, we will be watching to see if the FCC moves forward with any additional proceedings. Continue Reading Crystal Ball Time – What Are the Regulatory and Policy Issues Broadcasters Should Be Expecting to Deal With in 2026?

2026 has begun, so it is time to look at the regulatory dates of importance to broadcasters in the new year.  Later this week, we will look ahead at some of the broadcast issues likely to be tackled by the FCC and Congress in this new year.  But today, we will look at dates and…

  • Several AM broadcasters filed a petition for rulemaking with the FCC seeking a new opportunity for licensees of AM
…

Today, we would normally publish our look back at the prior week’s regulatory activity of importance to broadcasters but, as we noted last week, we are taking this week off and will publish a summary of the regulatory activity during the two week holiday period next Sunday.  But, as the start of a new month is upon us, we instead offer our regular look ahead at regulatory dates and deadlines for January.   

With each New Year, there are a host of new regulatory deadlines to keep broadcasters busy.  In January, this includes some recurring FCC deadlines like Quarterly Issues/Programs lists for all full power broadcasters, and a host of other quarterly obligations that are not as widely applicable.  For TV broadcasters, the month brings obligations including the annual children’s television reports on educational and informational programming and a public file certification on commercial limits, as well as the extension to stations in 10 additional markets of the audio description requirements. 

In addition to comments in rulemaking proceedings described below, January brings some new obligations.  For commercial broadcasters streaming audio programming on the Internet, there are new SoundExchange royalties that cover performances made on and after January 1, and a requirement for a higher minimum fee due at the end of the month.  There is also a freeze that will be imposed on applications for major changes by existing LPTV stations and TV translators related to a window that will open in March, the first window in well over a decade for the filing of applications for new LPTV stations. 

Let’s look at some of the specific dates and deadlines for broadcasters in January, starting with the routine deadlines that come up every January, and then moving to some of new obligations for 2026.  After that we provide January deadlines for comments in rulemaking proceedings (including reply comments on proposed changes to the FCC’s ownership rules and initial comments on proposals to speed the ATSC 3.0 conversion), a look at lowest unit rate windows that open in January for 2026 elections, and finally a few deadlines in early February.Continue Reading January 2026 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Children’s Television Programming Reporting, New Webcasting Royalties, Expansion of Audio Description Requirements, Comment Deadlines, Political Windows, and More

  • President Trump this week issued an Executive Order instructing various government agencies to take steps to move marijuana from Schedule
…

Yesterday, we saw President Trump issue an Executive Order instructing various government agencies to take steps to move marijuana from Schedule I (an illegal controlled substance with no medical uses and a high degree of potential abuse) to Schedule III, which includes many other drugs, such as ketamine and Tylenol with codeine, that require a prescription and FDA approval. While a rescheduling to Schedule III may have an impact on research and on marijuana’s medical uses, broadcasters need to continue to take a very cautious approach to marijuana advertising while the details of any possible changes unfold, as it is likely that, even after any rescheduling that makes marijuana a Schedule III drug, advertising will still be restricted under federal law.

While many states have, as a matter of state law, legalized medical and even recreational marijuana use, there is still concern for broadcasters accepting advertising for its sale and use.  As we have noted many times before (see, for example, our articles here, here, and here), there is a concern that the sale and distribution of marijuana, even when legal under state law, remains a felony under federal law. Under 21 USC § 843 (b) and (c), to use communications facilities, including radio and the internet, to facilitate any sale of any federally controlled substance is a felony.  This should be of particular concern to broadcasters, which are federally regulated.  If the FCC is faced with a complaint about a broadcaster “facilitating” the sale of marijuana through running advertising – an act illegal under federal law – the FCC might feel a need to take action against the broadcaster. Continue Reading President Trump Issues Executive Order to Remove Marijuana from Schedule I – Concerns about Broadcast Advertising Remain

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the American Music Fairness Act bill which proposes to adopt a new music royalty to be paid by over-the-air radio stations.  The royalty would be payable to SoundExchange for the public performance of sound recordings.  This means that the money collected would be paid to performing artists and record labels for the use of their recording of a song.  This new royalty would be in addition to the royalties paid by radio stations to composers and publishing companies through ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR, which are paid for the performance of the musical composition – the words and music to a song. This legislation is very similar to a bill introduced in the last Congress (see our article here), and is another in a string of similar bills proposing to establish a broadcast performance royalty that have been introduced in Congress over the last decade.  See, for instance, our articles here, here, here and here on previous attempts to impose such a royalty.

This past week’s hearing featured three witnesses.  A broadcast station owner from eastern North Carolina, Henry Hinton, spoke on behalf of broadcasters warning of the impact that such a royalty would have on the economics of broadcasting and the public service that broadcast radio stations provide.  His written statement is here, and a podcast where he further explained his testimony is here.  Michael Huppe, the CEO of SoundExchange, testified in support of the royalty arguing, among other things, that the US was an outlier in not imposing this royalty on broadcasters, and that the broadcast industry should not be able to make its tens of billions of dollars off of artist’s work without compensating them (that revenue figure must have been meant as a historical one, as even he admitted that total revenue for the radio industry was only $14 billion – and some of that comes from talk radio that presumably would not be affected by this royalty).  His statement is here.  Also testifying was Gene Simmons, the frontman of the legendary band Kiss, who argued that this legislation was needed to compensate the next generation of artists so that they get paid for radio play.  His statement is here.  The hearing was contentious at times as most of the committee members in attendance were supporters of the royalty (though at least 25 Senators and close to a majority of the House have signed on to an NAB resolution opposing the royalty).  The entire hearing can be viewed on the Committee’s webpage here.Continue Reading Congressional Hearing on American Music Fairness Act Proposing New Music Royalty on Radio Stations – What is Being Considered