Discussion of FCC, copyright, advertising and other legal issues of importance to radio and television broadcasters and other media companies
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
Yesterday’s big news across the broadcast press was that Gigi Sohn, who had for well over a year been the nominee of the Biden administration to fill the open seat at the FCC, withdrew her name from consideration. This may have been in reaction to circulated stories that there were several Democratic Senators who still were not committed to vote for her nomination without whose support she could not have been confirmed. Until the Biden administration can make another nomination and have that nominee go through the confirmation process in the Senate, the FCC will continue to have two Democratic Commissioners and two Republican ones, potentially stalling action on some rulemaking matters where there is a partisan split on the pending issue. We wrote in January in our look at the issues pending before the FCC about some of the issues that the FCC could face in 2023. In light of the seeming extension of the partisan divide on the FCC, we thought that we would again highlight some of the issues likely to be affected by the current state of the Commission.
But it is first worth noting that, merely because there is a partisan split among the Commissioners, this does not mean that nothing of significance will happen at the FCC. As we wrote yesterday, the TEGNA merger was designated for hearing, potentially leading to its demise. This was done not by an action of the Commissioners, but instead by its Media Bureau. Interpretations of FCC authority in specific cases by the Media Bureau, the Enforcement Bureau or other lower-level bureaus and offices within the Commission can be just as impactful on any specific company as are the big policy decisions made by the Commissioners themselves. Just as the TEGNA designation could have significant ramifications for broadcast dealmaking if its conclusions are taken to their logical ends, Bureau-level decisions can set day-to-day policy on many issues if the Commission itself cannot make broader decisions through their rulemaking process.…
Early this year, we provided our look into the crystal ball to see what was on the FCC’s agenda for broadcasters in the coming year. Yesterday, the FCC published in the Federal Register its own list – its Semiannual Regulatory Agenda – listing an inventory of the matters at the FCC awaiting Commission action. The…
The recent $504,000 fine proposed to be levied on Fox for the use of simulated EAS tones in an NFL football promotion (see FCC’s Notice of Apparent Liability here) is obviously a message to broadcasters to remember that EAS tones can only be used for real alerts or authorized tests of the system – and not in any advertising, programming or promotions. This is consistent with past big fines for improper use of these simulated EAS tones (see, for instance, the cases we wrote about here, here, and here). This aspect of the Fox case – don’t use EAS tones except for real EAS purposes – has been well noted. What has received less attention are the small details that went into this big proposed fine.
The most obvious of these details was the short duration of the EAS tones that led to the violation itself – the use was only 3 seconds long. The Commission found that even a 3 second use of EAS tones was sufficient to confuse the public about a possible emergency or to contribute to possible desensitization of the public to the importance of these tones. But this is not the first situation where the FCC has imposed a very large fine for a violation that occurred only very briefly – one of the most obvious situations being a $325,000 indecency fine for a 3 second image of sexual organs in a corner of a TV screen when a station broadcast a screenshot of the homepage of an adult website to illustrate a news story about a former adult film star who became a local first responder (see our summary of that case, here). Both in the recent EAS case and in the case of the indecency violation, the issues were not caught in the production of the on-air segments or in any pre-broadcast review of the programming before it was broadcast. Both cases serve as a reminder that stations need to not take anything for granted in their pre-broadcast review of programming segments, reinforcing the need to carefully inspect everything that goes out over the air, as even 3 second violations can lead to fines that exceed $100,000 per second.…
It’s a new year, and it’s time to look ahead at what Washington may have in store for broadcasters this year. The FCC may be slow to tackle some of the big issues on its agenda (like the completion of 2018 Quadrennial Review or any other significant partisan issue) as it still has only four Commissioners – two Democrats and two Republicans. On controversial issues like changes to the ownership rules, there tends to be a partisan divide. As the nomination of Gigi Sohn expired at the end of the last Congress in December, the Biden administration was faced with the question of whether to renominate her and hope that the confirmation process moves more quickly this time, or to come up with a new nominee whose credentials will be reviewed by the Senate. It was announced this week that the administration has decided to renominate her, meaning that her confirmation process will begin anew. How long that process takes and when the fifth commissioner is seated may well set the tone for what actions the FCC takes in broadcast regulation this year.
Perhaps the most significant issue at the FCC facing broadcasters is the resolution of the 2018 Quadrennial Review to assess the current local ownership rules and determine if they are still in the public interest. As we wrote last week, the FCC has already started the 2022 review, as required by Congress, even though it has not resolved the issues raised in the 2018 review. For the radio industry, those issues include the potential relaxation of the local radio ownership rules. As we have written, some broadcasters and the NAB have pushed the FCC to recognize that the radio industry has significantly changed since the ownership limits were adopted in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and local radio operators need a bigger platform from which to compete with the new digital companies that compete for audience and advertising in local markets. Other companies have been reluctant to endorse changes – but even many of them recognize that relief from the ownership limits on AM stations would be appropriate.…
The new year brings a series of regulatory deadlines in January and a February 1 license renewal deadline that broadcasters should take note of. As in 2022, the FCC will remain vigilant in making sure that its deadlines are met, so the following items should not be overlooked or left until the last minute.
The…
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
…
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
…
All media companies, including broadcasters, webcasters, podcasters and others, need to consider carefully their advertising production after the big penalties imposed on Google and iHeart for broadcast commercials where local DJs promoted the Pixel 4 phone. Promotions included statements that clearly implied that the announcers had used the phone, including statements that it was “my favorite camera” and “I’ve been taking studio-like photos” with the phone. But, according to the announcements of the settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and seven state attorneys general (see the FTC press release and blog article), the announcers had not in fact used the phone. Google will pay the states penalties of $9 million, and iHeart will pay about $400,000 (see example of the state Court filings on the settlement, this one for Massachusetts, for Google and iHeart). Each will enter into consent orders with the FTC (Google order here and iHeart here) requiring 10-year recordkeeping and compliance plans to train employees, maintain records of advertising with endorsements, and reports to be filed periodically with the FTC.
The mission of the FTC is to protect the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition. In that role, the FTC regulates deceptive advertising practices. Over a decade ago, we highlighted the FTC’s update of its policies on “testimonial and endorsement advertising” that made clear that the FTC required that any sort of “celebrity” (interpreted broadly) endorser had to have a basis for the claims that they were making in their pitches for a product. This notice also made clear that any statements made about the experience in using a product had to be accurate and, when making claims about the performance of a product, the endorser had to accurately state performance that users can expect to obtain when they use the product. Just using a “your results may vary” disclaimer was not enough. In the 2009 proceeding, the FTC emphasized the applicability of these standards to online promotions, requiring disclosures for not only traditional advertising but also for social media influencers and others who are paid to promote products through online channels. Such payments (or any other valuable consideration the influencer receives) must be disclosed when pitching a product.
Continue Reading Big FTC Penalties on Google and iHeart for Deceptive Endorsements in Broadcast Commercials Mandate Care in Crafting Your Local Advertising
