Photo of David Oxenford

David Oxenford

Subscribe to David Oxenford's Posts

David Oxenford represents broadcasting and digital media companies in connection with regulatory, transactional and intellectual property issues. He has represented broadcasters and webcasters before the Federal Communications Commission, the Copyright Royalty Board, courts and other government agencies for over 30 years.

Follow:Read more about David OxenfordDavid's Linkedin ProfileDavid's Twitter Profile
  • FCC Chairman Carr sent a letter to NPR and PBS announcing that he has asked the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to
…

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

Washington DC is not the only place where there are regulatory or political decisions made that affect broadcasters and advertising for candidates or political issues.  We’ve written many times about state laws that govern the use of AI in political advertising, with more than 20 states already having laws on their books and more considering such legislation in legislative sessions this year (see our articles here and here).  We have also noted that there are a number of states that have laws requiring media companies, including digital media companies, to keep records of political advertising sales and, in some cases, to make those records available to the public (see, for example, our article here).  While there are few federal elections in 2025, there are state and local elections in many states – and most of these laws are targeted to those state and local elections, so broadcast stations and cable systems regulated by the FCC need to be aware of these state laws.  But most of these laws reach far beyond FCC-regulated entities and apply to digital and even print media – so all companies need to be paying attention to their requirements.  And a number of recent actions highlight these concerns.

No state has been as active in enforcing such requirements as Washington State.  In a December decision seemingly overlooked by much of the trade press, the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld a decision fining Facebook parent company Meta $24.6 million for its failure to comply with the extensive political disclosure rules adopted by that state.  This decision upheld a summary judgement by a state trial court finding Meta liable for a $24.6 million penalty for violating the state’s public disclosure rules that apply to political advertising (for more on the trial court decision, see our article here). Continue Reading Washington State Court of Appeals Upholds $24.6 Million Penalty Against Meta for Not Meeting State Political Advertising Disclosure Requirements – A Warning to All Media Companies to Assess and Comply with State Political Disclosure Rules

While the new Republican-led FCC will no doubt tackle many policy issues in the upcoming months (see our article looking at some of the issues that we expect the FCC will address this year), there are also standard dates and deadlines in February to which broadcasters still need to pay attention. Here are some of those dates:

February 3 (as February 1 is a Saturday) is the deadline for radio and television station employment units in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma with five or more full-time employees to upload their Annual EEO Public File Report to their stations’ online public inspection files (OPIFs).  A station employment unit is a station or cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same general geographic area having at least one common employee.  For employment units with five or more full-time employees, the annual report covers hiring and employment outreach activities for the prior year.  A link to the uploaded report must also be included on the home page of each station’s website, if the station has a website.  At this time, these reports appear unaffected by any actions by the new FCC.  While Chairman Carr last week issued a statement suspending all DEI efforts by the FCC, that statement did not specifically mention routine broadcast EEO filings so, until they hear otherwise, broadcasters should continue to observe these deadlines. 

The filing of the Annual EEO Public File Reports by radio station employment units with eleven or more full-time employees or TV stations with five or more employees triggers a Mid-Term EEO Review that analyzes the last two Annual Reports for compliance with the FCC’s EEO requirements.  The Mid-Term EEO Review begins February 3 for these larger radio station employment units in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.  Television station employment units in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are also subject to this review.  Radio stations located in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma that are part of station employment units with five or more full-time employees must also indicate in their OPIFs whether their employment unit has eleven or more full-time employees, using a checkbox now included in the OPIF’s EEO folder.  This allows the FCC to determine which station groups need a Mid-Term EEO Review.  See our articles here and here for more on the Mid-Term EEO Review.Continue Reading February 2025 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – EEO, Comment Deadlines, FM Duplication Rule, Political Windows, and More

  • President Trump issued several Executive Orders that could affect FCC decision-making, including an Executive Order suspending government diversity, equity, and
…
  • The FCC’s Enforcement and Media Bureaus, under a new Docket opened by the Commission called “Preserving the First Amendment,” dismissed
…

A decision from the past week shows that the FCC shows no mercy for broadcasters who don’t know the rules, even when the broadcaster attempts to comply.  The FCC proposed a $369,190 fine against a Texas TV station because the station’s employees did not know how to properly participate in the 2018, 2019, and 2021 nationwide Emergency Alert Service tests.  According to the Notice of Apparent Liability, the station employees apparently knew that Nationwide EAS Tests were to be conducted in these years.  But, from the recitation of the facts, it appears that the station employees did not understand what was supposed to happen during these tests.  Rather than retransmitting the test alert conveyed either by IPAWs (the internet-based delivery system for EAS alerts) or by the traditional over-the-air daisy chain transmission, the station itself created an alert using the test language from some old alerts and transmitted that information on the air.  As the FCC noted in the Notice, that is not what the rule requires and does not further the purpose of the test as it does nothing to show whether the EAS alerting system works to pass along messages from the alert originator to the stations and then to the public.

This issue was compounded by the station filing reports on its participation in the test in the EAS Testing Reporting System certifying that it had received the alerts and retransmitted them as required by the rules.  While the station claimed that it tried to comply with the EAS testing requirements and that its failure to live up to the letter of the law was due to its inexperienced staff not knowing how to receive and retransmit the actual EAS test signals, the FCC rejected the station’s argument.  In fact, the Commission decided to propose more than the base fines for these violations (base fines are on the order of $8000 for each of the four violations, plus separate fines for the reporting issues) because of their repeated nature and given the fact that the apparent violations relate to public safety issues. The large fine for these violations illustrate several concerns for broadcasters – including that ignorance is no excuse for broadcast violations.Continue Reading A $369,190 Proposed Fine for Improper Participation in EAS Tests Shows that Ignorance of FCC Rules Is No Excuse for Noncompliance

  • The FCC released an Order increasing by an average of more than 17% its application fees, including those for broadcast
…

The FCC released an Order this week announcing an upcoming increase in application fees to be paid on any “feeable” application.  For commercial broadcasters, that includes applications for technical changes in facilities, applications for assignments or transfers of control of broadcast companies and stations, license renewal applications, requests for Special Temporary Authority when a station…