Last week, U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) introduced the American Music Fairness Act (see their Press Release for more details), with a companion bill to follow in the House.  If adopted, this legislation would impose a new music royalty on 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 new legislation is virtually identical to that introduced in the last Congress (see our article here), and is another in a string of similar bills 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.

As in the version of the bill introduced in the last Congress, in an attempt to rebut arguments that this royalty would impose an unreasonable financial burden on small broadcasters, the legislation proposes relatively low flat fees on small commercial and noncommercial radio stations, while the rates applicable to all other broadcasters would be determined by the Copyright Royalty Board – the same judges who set internet radio royalties payable to SoundExchange by webcasters, including broadcasters for their internet simulcasts.  Under the bill, the CRB would review rates every 5 years, just as they do for webcasting royalty rates.

Continue Reading It’s Back!  American Music Fairness Act Proposing New Music Royalties for Over-the-Air Broadcasting Introduced in the New Congress

The AM for Every Vehicle Act has been introduced in the new Congress after dying when the last session of Congress ended in December without it getting to a vote, despite having the announced support of a majority of both the House and Senate.  Pending bills do not carry over to a new session of Congress.  Thus, the bill had to be reintroduced in the current Congress – which it was last week by Senate co-sponsors Ed Markey (D-MA) and Ted Cruz (R-TX). The National Association of Broadcasters quickly released a statement supporting the bill’s reintroduction, stating that the bill “will protect AM radio’s role as an essential public safety tool and ensure Americans can continue to rely on this life-saving resource in their vehicles.” 

Opposition to the bill remains, with opponents arguing that it interferes with automakers’ ability to innovate and provide car buyers with the technologies that they want.  As part of that opposition, Gary Shapiro, the head of the Consumer Technology Association, sent a letter to NAB CEO Curtis LeGeyt, opposing the mandate, arguing among other things that AM is an outdated technology and suggesting that the CTA would support a performance royalty making broadcasters pay SoundExchange royalties for their over-the-air broadcasts if the NAB continued to push the AM legislation. While the legislation is essentially the same as that considered in the last Congress, we should again look at what it provides. 

Continue Reading The AM for Every Vehicle Act Introduced in the New Congress – What Does It Provide? 

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.

  • FCC Chairman Carr sent a letter to NPR and PBS announcing that he has asked the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to open an investigation into whether their radio and television station affiliates have aired commercial advertisements.  Noncommercial broadcast stations, including NPR and PBS affiliates, are prohibited by law from airing commercial advertisements.  They are limited to airing “underwriting announcements” that identify their sponsors without promoting the sponsor’s products or services.  FCC Commissioners Gomez and Starks released statements questioning the basis for the investigation, suggesting that it is as an attempt to intimidate or silence these broadcasters.  For more about this action and what the FCC’s underwriting policies require, see the article that we posted on our Broadcast Law Blog on Friday, here.
  • The Department of Justice filed a letter with the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in connection with the court challenge to the FCC’s reinstatement of the FCC Form 395-B.  The letter suggested that the U.S. government may no longer aggressively defend that reinstatement.  In February 2024, the FCC reinstated the Form 395-B, which requires that broadcasters yearly prepare a report for a station’s online public file classifying all of its employees by race, gender, and employment position (see our article here about that decision).  The decision is being challenged by several broadcasters, including the NRB and the Texas Association of Broadcasters, who argue that the form is unconstitutional for reasons including that it unlawfully pressures broadcasters to engage in race- and sex-conscious employment practices (see our discussion here and here).  The DOJ’s letter admits that some EEO data collection is required by Congressionally imposed mandates, but that the government “no longer subscribes” to the FCC’s defense of the form’s reinstatement to the extent that the data collection is not required by law and is inconsistent with President Trump’s Executive Order suspending government diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.  As we discussed here, oral argument on the Court challenge to the form’s reinstatement is scheduled for February 4.  It remains unclear the extent to which the FCC will defend the form’s reinstatement.  Chairman Carr vocally opposed the FCC action last February, stating that the requirement to make this information public was unconstitutional as it could be used to harass broadcasters and to force them to make hiring decisions based on race and gender (see his 6 page dissent to the reinstatement, here).
  • Senators Cruz and Markey reintroduced the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, which requires that automobile manufacturers keep AM radio on the car dashboard.  The proposed bill has the same language as the version of the bill introduced last year but never passed despite broad bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate (see our discussion here, here, and here).  The National Association of Broadcasters released a statement supporting the bill’s reintroduction, stating that the bill “will protect AM radio’s role as an essential public safety tool and ensure Americans can continue to rely on this life-saving resource in their vehicles.”  Opposition to the bill remains, with opponents arguing that it interferes with the car maker’s ability to innovate and provide buyers with the technologies that they want.  Gary Shapiro, the head of the Consumer Technology Association, sent a letter to NAB CEO Curtis LeGeyt, opposing the mandate, arguing among other things that AM is an outdated technology and suggesting that the CTA would support a performance royalty making broadcasters pay SoundExchange royalties for their over-the-air broadcasts (see the bullet below) if the NAB continued to push the AM legislation.
  • On the subject of performance royalties for over-the-air broadcasting, the American Music Fairness Act was again introduced in the new Congress by U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).  This bill proposes to require that broadcasters pay performing artists and copyright holders (usually their record companies) royalties for over-the-air broadcasting.  Currently, broadcasters pay royalties for over-the-air transmissions to songwriters and the copyright holders in musical compositions, and they pay artists and labels (as well as composers and publishing companies) when that music is digitally streamed.  If passed, the Copyright Royalty Board would set these new royalties.  We wrote this bill in more detail when it was considered in the last Congress, and the new version appears to be similar if not identical to the prior version.   
  • Congressman Pat Ryan and Senator Chris Murphy introduced the “Stop Sports Blackouts Act” which would require cable and satellite providers to refund to their customers a portion of their subscription fees if programming from a channel was blacked out as a result of the failure of negotiations over the continued carriage of that channel.  The bill, if adopted, would require refunds not only when blackouts occur when broadcasters and MVPDs are not able to agree on retransmission consent fees, but also when MVPDs are not able to reach continued carriage agreements with other cable programming providers.  A statement released by the bill’s sponsors argue that consumers should not have to pay for channels that they are not able to watch. The American Television Alliance, a trade group for various MVPDs, condemned the legislation, blaming television networks and other big programmers for holding MVPDs “ransom” for higher programming fees. 
  • Last week, Chairman Carr removed all items listed on the FCC’s circulation list (those orders or rulemaking proposals that have been drafted and are currently circulating among the Commissioners for review and vote).  These were items drafted during the prior administration.  This week, Carr released a statement regarding the removal of one of those items – a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing rules on siting wireless and broadcast towers in flood plains.  Carr stated that the NPRM was removed from the FCC circulation list because the proposed rules would have slowed tower construction by subjecting towers to additional environmental regulations.  Also removed from the list was a draft order on a proposal to require Emergency Alert System participants, such as broadcasters and cable providers, to notify the FCC of EAS equipment problems, to have contingency plans for distributing alerts if their EAS system is down, and to adopt and report to the FCC on cybersecurity measures for their EAS systems.  Carr has not released any statement regarding the future of that order. 
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau dismissed a construction permit application for a new LPFM station at Carrollton, Texas, for failing to meet the FCC’s LPFM localism requirement because the applicant’s headquarters and all of its directors’ residences were located more than 10 miles from the proposed station’s transmitter site (the limit for LPFM applicants in the top 50 urban markets).  Due to the application’s dismissal, the Bureau granted the mutually exclusive application for a new LPFM station at Lancaster, Texas.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we provided our regular monthly summary of upcoming regulatory dates affecting broadcasters, looking at those for February and early March.  We also took our annual look at the legal issues in Super Bowl advertising and promotions.  Finally, we discussed how a Washington state court’s upholding of a $24.6 million penalty against Meta for failing to meet its political advertising disclosure requirements under Washington State laws serves as a warning to all media companies, including broadcasters, to understand and comply with state laws on public disclosure of political advertising sales – rules that, in many states, cover media (like various internet-delivered communications) not subject to FCC regulation.

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

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

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

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.

  • President Trump issued several Executive Orders that could affect FCC decision-making, including an Executive Order suspending government diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives; and an Executive Order advising federal departments and agencies to freeze implementing or proposing new regulations for 60 days until they have been reviewed by the appropriate department or agency head appointed by the President.  While it is unclear whether Executive Orders can legally bind independent agencies such as the FCC, we have already seen FCC Chairman Carr’s acting in accordance with the Trump directives.  For instance:
    • Carr announced that the FCC will end its DEI initiatives.  While his announcement does not specifically address broadcast EEO policies, Carr vigorously opposed the FCC’s reinstatement of FCC Form 395-B, which requires that broadcasters yearly prepare a report classifying all of its employees by race, gender, and employment position (see the discussions of this obligation on our Broadcast Law Blog here, here, and here).  As an oral argument on Court challenges to the FCC’s reinstatement of the form is scheduled for February 4, we may soon see how Carr’s announcement is applied to the FCC’s defense of that form.  FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement opposing the end of the FCC’s DEI initiatives. 
  • The FCC’s Media and Enforcement Bureaus reinstated the Center for American Rights’ complaints against TV stations owned by the ABC, NBC, and CBS broadcast networks for aspects of their coverage of the 2024 presidential campaign.  These complaints alleged that the stations violated FCC rules prohibiting broadcast news distortion or those requiring equal opportunities for political candidates.  As we discussed in our weekly update last week, as one of the last major actions of the Commission under former Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, CAR’s complaints (along with those of other parties and a complaint against the renewal of a Fox television station) were dismissed by the Bureaus, finding no evidence to support claims of FCC rule violations and that any action on the complaints would involve the FCC in a prohibited intrusion on the First Amendment.  In this week’s action, the Bureaus, under acting Chiefs newly appointed by Carr,  stated that the dismissals of the complaints were premature because they were based on an insufficient record and that they required further investigation. FCC Commissioner Gomez issued a statement opposing the reinstatement of these complaints.
  • There was a Federal Register announcement of the opening of a comment cycle for a petition for reconsideration filed against the FCC’s September 2024 First Report and Order allowing FM stations to operate at different power levels on their upper and lower digital sidebands and permitting FM stations to begin such service simply by notifying the FCC (we noted the First Report and Order in a weekly update here).  The Petitioner raises several arguments against the order and concerns about digital “HD” operations in general, particularly complaining about HD interference to Class A FM stations.  The Petitioner’s proposals include that the FCC should require an FCC application or direct notice to affected stations before an HD operation is implemented and an annual filing of evidence of a station’s continued compliance with their HD authorizations; it should allow objections to HD operations based on real or predicted interference to other FM stations; and that the FCC should provide Class A FM stations with greater interference protection from HD stations.  Comments and reply comments responding to the petition are due February 6 and February 18, respectively.
  • The Federal Register notice of the FCC’s TV blackout reporting requirements adopted last month were sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review before they can take effect.  In December, the FCC released a Report and Order requiring multichannel video programming distributors to report TV station blackouts resulting from failed retransmission consent negotiations (see the discussion of that order in our weekly update here).  
  • The FCC released a Small Entity Compliance Guide summarizing the “all-in” pricing rule adopted in its April 2024 Report and Order.  The rule requires cable operators and direct broadcast satellite providers to provide the “all-in” price for video programming as a single line item in promotional materials and on subscribers’ bills, including charges for broadcast retransmission consent, regional sports, and other programming.  Cable operators and DBS providers had to begin complying with the “all-in” rule last month.  Small cable operators (those with $47 million or less in annual receipts), however, have until March 19 to comply with the rule.

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.

  • The FCC’s Enforcement and Media Bureaus, under a new Docket opened by the Commission called “Preserving the First Amendment,” dismissed complaints by the Center for American Rights and other parties against TV stations owned by ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC, alleging that their news coverage violated the FCC’s rules governing, among other things, broadcast news distortion and equal opportunities for political candidates.  FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel (citing calls by President-Elect Trump to revoke broadcast licenses for content that he did not like, stated “First, the FCC should not be the President’s speech police. Second, the FCC should not be journalism’s censor-in-chief”) and Commissioner Gomez released statements supporting the dismissal of the complaints. 
    • The Enforcement Bureau dismissed CAR’s complaint against the Philadelphia ABC station alleging news distortion during its broadcast of the Presidential debate on September 10, 2024.  The Bureau found that ABC’s fact checking during the debate was not evidence that ABC intentionally distorted its debate coverage.
    • The Enforcement Bureau also dismissed CAR’s compliant against the New York CBS station alleging news distortion in its broadcast of a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.  The Bureau found no evidence that the CBS decisions were intentional attempts to falsify news as opposed to the exercise of its editorial discretion. 
    • The Media Bureau dismissed CAR’s complaint against the New York NBC station alleging that NBC violated the FCC’s equal opportunities rule when Vice President Harris and Senator Tim Kaine appeared on Saturday Night Live without also inviting competing candidates President-Elect Trump and Hung Cao to do so.  The Bureau reviewed precedent that said that equal opportunities does not require that competing candidates get exactly the same access, but instead only requires that competing candidates, upon request, get access to airtime with comparable audiences.  NBC did so by running Trump and Cao’s ads in the days after the SNL episode during broadcast programming with comparable, and likely larger, audiences. 
    • The Media Bureau also dismissed a petition to deny and informal objections filed against the Fox’s Philadelphia station license renewal application.  The petition and objections argued that the station’s renewal application should be denied principally because cable channel Fox News aired false statements regarding Dominion Voting Systems following the 2020 Presidential Election.  The Bureau granted the renewal application after finding no evidence that the station aired false information regarding Dominion and that there was no final Court decision in the Dominion case finding egregious conduct that could be attributed to the character of the station’s owner.
  • President Trump nominated Olivia Trusty as the FCC’s third Republican Commissioner.  Trusty currently serves as a staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee under Chairman Roger Wicker.  If confirmed by the Senate, Trusty will assume outgoing Chairwoman Rosenworcel’s seat on the Commission.  FCC Commissioners Gomez and Starks issued statements congratulating Trusty on her nomination. 
  • The National Association of Broadcasters released The Future of Television Initiative Report detailing the findings of a process initiated by the NAB and FCC to bring together stakeholders from across the television industry (including consumer advocates) to make recommendations for the successful deployment of the ATSC 3.0 NextGen Television standard.  According to an NAB Blog about the report, it explores “market-based and other solutions to minimize the cost to consumers of ATSC 3.0 equipment, ramping up consumer education on the benefits of ATSC 3.0 and encouraging further collaboration between MVPDs and broadcasters and within industry standards bodies to resolve MVPD carriage concerns.”
  • Reply comments were filed in response to the amended Paramount-Skydance Media transfer applications proposing that David Ellison acquire a controlling stake in the company and become its Chairman and CEO.  CAR urges the FCC to condition the transaction’s approval on the company ensuring viewpoint diversity by: (1) including individuals from different ideological backgrounds on its board of directors; (2) locating its executive and editorial staff outside of New York and Los Angeles; (3) targeting conservative universities and media companies for employee recruiting; and (4) appointing an independent overseer of the company’s efforts on this issue.  CAR also urges the FCC to scrutinize the company’s non-voting foreign investor (which the FCC normally does not do when a foreign investor has less than a 25% interest in a licensee and lacks influence over the company’s management) because the Department of Defense considers this investor to be a Chinese military company.  FUSE Media suggests that the FCC should designate the transaction for hearing to examine whether the new company’s intended use of Oracle technology could cause it to favor its own programming over unaffiliated programming.  An unsuccessful bidder for Paramount claims that the applicants’ failure to disclose certain matters in separate litigation proceedings raised questions regarding its broadcast licensee qualifications.  See our updates here, here, here, and here on the transaction and the comments previously filed in this proceeding.
  • The FCC announced that January 15 is the effective date for the increased fines for violations of statutorily-set FCC requirements that were adopted to reflect inflation earlier this month.  This includes an increase in the maximum fine for broadcast indecency to $508,373 for each day of a violation, with a maximum of $4,692,668 for a continuing violation; and for pirate radio to a maximum fine of $2,453,218.
  • The FCC submitted its annual report on pirate radio to Congress summarizing its enforcement efforts against pirate radio operators in FY 2024: issuing six fines, proposing 18 fines, and issuing 41 Notices of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting – of which 22 resulted from pirate radio sweeps by the Enforcement Bureau’s field offices.
    • The Enforcement Bureau also issued two Notices of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting this week to landowners in Boston, Massachusetts (for an unlicensed AM radio station) and Norwalk, Connecticut.  The Bureau warned the landowners that the FCC may issue fines of up to the previously maximum fine of $2,391,097 under the PIRATE Radio Act if the landowners continue permitting pirate radio broadcasts from their properties.
  • The Media Bureau announced that certain device manufacturers and Multichannel Video Programming Distributors must make closed captioning display settings “readily accessible” to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing beginning on August 17, 2026.  The FCC adopted the requirement last year, which applies to all U.S.-manufactured devices using a picture screen that receives or plays back video programming simultaneously with sound (such as TVs, smartphones, tablets, and computers) and to MVPDs providing their customers with covered devices to use their services.  We last noted this proceeding in a weekly update in September, when the FCC released a compliance guide for entities subject to the rule,
  • The Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation against a Virginia AM station after an inspection revealed that its tower’s lights were out, the station failed to maintain the tower’s perimeter fence, and the station did not notify the FAA of the light outage.  The Bureau also found that the station was not operating pursuant to its license and did not file a transfer of control application after its owner’s death.  The station must now explain to the Bureau how it will correct the rule violations and prevent future violations from occurring. 
  • The Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director issued an Order to Pay or to Show Cause against a Texas FM station proposing to revoke the station’s license unless, within 60 days, the station pays its delinquent regulatory fees and interest, administrative costs, and penalties, or shows that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred.  The station has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $7,553.84 for fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2020, 2021, and 2022.
  • The Media Bureau issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing the substitution of UHF channel 29 for VHF channel 13 at Monroe, Louisiana due to the inferior quality of VHF channel signals.  The petition serves as another example of the superiority of UHF channels for the transmission of digital TV signals.
  • The Media Bureau dismissed a new Georgia LPFM construction permit application for failing to meet the FCC’s LPFM localism requirement because the applicant’s headquarters and all of its directors’ residences were located more than 10 miles from the proposed station’s transmitter site (the limit for LPFM applicants outside of the top 50 urban markets). 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we discussed how the FCC’s $369,190 proposed fine against a Texas TV station for improper participation in Emergency Alert Service tests demonstrates that ignorance of the FCC rules does not provide an excuse for noncompliance – even when the broadcaster makes a misguided attempt to comply with the FCC’s rules.  This is particularly true for violations of rules dealing with public safety matters, like those here involving EAS.   

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