Discussion of FCC, copyright, advertising and other legal issues of importance to radio and television broadcasters and other media companies
Principal Editor: David O’Connor
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.
While there are only a few regulatory deadlines scheduled for broadcasters this March, with more coming in April, as has occurred so many times in the last few years, we need to remind you that even the FCC deadlines in late March and early April could be postponed if there is a federal government shutdown, as the federal government is funded only through March 14. As we have discussed here with respect to previous potential shutdowns, the FCC and other government agencies may have to cease all but critical functions if they do not have any residual funds to continue operations during a shutdown. Thus, some deadlines could shift if this new administration follows the precedent for shutdowns followed in the past.
Before any potential shutdown, comments are due March 7 responding to the reinstated Center for American Rights’ complaint against a CBS-owned TV station alleging news distortion in its broadcast of a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. CAR’s compliant was originally dismissed as one of the FCC’s last major actions under former Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, but was reinstated one week later under FCC Chairman Carr further investigation (see our discussion here, here, and here). At the FCC’s request, CBS provided the FCC with an unedited transcript and video of the 60 Minutes interview. The FCC also released additional video of the interview that was posted on YouTube. The FCC stated that it wanted to open the proceeding to public participation given the value of transparency and the degree of public interest in the matter. Reply comments are due March 24. Continue Reading March 2025 Regulatory Updates for Broadcasters – Daylight Savings Time, Comment Deadlines, FCC Ownership Rules in Court, Political Windows, and more
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.
When in January I offered my predictions as to the issues that the new FCC would be considering this year, payola and musical artists complaining of being coerced to play for free at radio station concerts or other events was not on the bingo card. That changed early this past week when Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn sent a letter to FCC Chair Brendan Carr stating that she had received many complaints from musical artists complaining that they were being coerced to play for free at radio station events with threats that, if they did not participate, on-air play of their music would be reduced.
The Senator’s letter suggested that this was a violation of the FCC’s payola rules that prohibit broadcasters from making programming decisions based on the receipt of anything of value for airplay without disclosing that consideration on the air. The letter’s implication is that receipt of the artist’s concert appearance for free would constitute the consideration and, if that consideration was not disclosed when increased airplay occurred, the station would be in violation of the payola policies. The letter suggested that the FCC take action to ensure that such coercive tactics were not used to secure free appearances by musicians at radio station events. In what seems like record time, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau responded to the Senator’s letter by issuing an Enforcement Advisory about the issue. What does that Advisory provide and what are the FCC’s policies payola and sponsorship identification?Continue Reading FCC Enforcement Advisory Warns of Payola Concerns in Coercing Bands to Play at Broadcast Station Events with Threats of Decreased Airplay – and Reminds All Broadcasters, Radio and TV, of Sponsorship Identification Requirements
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 from the past week of significance to broadcasters, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
Yesterday, the new FCC Chairman Brendan Carr sent a letter to NPR and PBS announcing that he has asked the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to launch an investigation into their advertising practices – suggesting without specifics that these entities had gone beyond the permitted underwriting announcements by airing prohibited advertisements for commercial products and services (Commissioner Starks and Gomez issued statements questioning the basis for this investigation). While the Chairman’s letter was vague on specifics, and unclear as to whether there were specific listener or viewer complaints that triggered the investigation (which is how the FCC typically initiates an investigation into a broadcaster’s regulatory compliance ), the letter does suggest that all noncommercial broadcast stations, including all LPFM stations and other full-power stations not affiliated with NPR or PBS, should examine their practices to ensure that they comply with the FCC’s underwriting policies.
What do these rules require? Noncommercial stations can air acknowledgments of those making financial contributions to stations, but the identification of such sponsors must be limited – you can give their name, a general description of what their business is and where they are located, but such information must be provided in an objective, non-promotional manner. FCC standards prohibit calls to action (e.g., “visit this store,” “come on down”), inducements to buy (e.g., “we have a two for one special,” “mention the station and you’ll get a discount on all that you buy”), price information (e.g., “tickets only $29.99” or “this week, we have our end-of-year sale” or “10% senior discounts”) or qualitative claims (“the best pizza in town,” “quality merchandise and a friendly staff”). We have written many articles on these issues (see, for instance, articles here, here and here) and the fines that have arisen when the rules were not followed. Continue Reading As FCC Chairman Announces an Investigation into Alleged PBS and NPR Advertising, a Look at the Underwriting Requirements for All Noncommercial Broadcast Stations
Mitchell Stabbe, our resident trademark law specialist, today takes his annual look at the legal issues in Super Bowl advertising and promotions (see some of his past articles here, here, and here). Take it away, Mitch:
As a life-long fan of the Baltimore Ravens (the life of the Ravens, not my life), my interest in the Super Bowl XVII has waned a bit. The opposite is true for those who seek to profit from the playing of the game. 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. But, first, a trivia question. Who won Super Bowl I. (Answer at end)
The Super Bowl means big bucks.
There are currently four primary television networks that broadcast and stream NFL games in the United States (CBS/Paramount+, Fox, ABC/ESPN/ESPN+ and NBC/Peacock). It is estimated that, with the new contract which took effect last year, each will pay the NFL an average of over $2 billion per year for those rights through 2032, including the right to broadcast the Super Bowl on a rotating basis.
The investment seems to pay off for the networks. Reportedly, it will cost more than $8 Million for some of the 30-second spots during this year’s Super Bowl broadcast, up from last year. It has also been reported that last year’s game brought in advertising revenue totaling more than the $600 M from the prior year (with as much as an additional $60 million from ads run when last year’s game went into overtime). These figures do not include income from ads during any pre-game or post-game programming. (In addition to the sums paid to have their commercials aired, some advertisers spend millions of dollars to produce an ad.) In addition, the NFL receives hundreds of millions of dollars from licensing the use of the SUPER BOWL trademark and logo.
Given the value of the Super Bowl franchise, it is not surprising that the NFL is extremely aggressive in protecting its golden goose from anything it views as unauthorized efforts to trade off the goodwill associated with the mark or the game. Accordingly, with the coin toss almost upon us, advertisers should take special care before publishing or engaging in advertising or other promotional activities that refer to the Super Bowl. Broadcasters and news publishers have greater latitude than other businesses, but still need to be wary of engaging in activities that the NFL may view as trademark or copyright infringement. (These risks also apply to other named sporting events, for example, making use of the phrases “Final Four” or “March Madness” in connection with the annual NCAA Basketball Tournament.)Continue Reading 2025 Update on Super Bowl Advertising and Promotions
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.
