Television

Subscribe to Television 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

In the last few weeks, I’ve spoken to meetings of several broadcast organizations about important pending issues at the FCC and, unfortunately, had to cancel my planned appearance at the TVOT (TV of Tomorrow) conference in New York City where I was to have talked about the same issues.  In any such conversation, probably the most talked about issue is the potential change in the broadcast ownership rules.  Comments are due to be filed in the FCC’s Quadrennial Review of media ownership on Wednesday (December 17).  We recently explored the radio issues to be considered, and they are relatively straightforward – should the FCC retain or significantly modify the local radio ownership rules?  But I am finding that there is some confusion about the TV rules. The comments due on Wednesday address only the local TV ownership rules, but potential changes in the national rules are also being considered in a separate proceeding, and changes in both are needed to allow some of the pending transactions to go forward (like the Nexstar-TEGNA deal).  We thought that we would explore the TV issues in this article.

The national ownership caps were set by Congress and prohibit broadcast owners from holding an interest in TV stations reaching more than 39% of the national television audience (though, in practice, the real limit is much higher as the audience of UHF television stations, which are now the majority of stations, still count as half that of VHF stations, the dominant transmission standard in 2004 when the 39% cap was adopted by Congress – see our article here on the UHF discount).  The local TV ownership rules which currently limit any owner from having attributable interests in more than 2 TV stations in any market, are considered by the FCC in Congressionally mandated Quadrennial Reviews of the local ownership rules.  A waiver of both of these mandates, or a change in the rules themselves, is necessary before a deal like that proposed by Nexstar can be approved.  Is that likely to happen?  There are many issues to consider.Continue Reading The Limits on Ownership of Over-the-Air Television Stations – Looking at the Two FCC Proceedings that Could Change the Rules