This week, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking containing its proposal for the annual regulatory fees to be paid by broadcasters in September of this year.  The annual fees are paid by all entities that the FCC regulates to reimburse the government for the cost of FCC operations.  The FCC decides how much each industry pays based on the percentage of the FCC’s workforce which is dedicated to regulating that industry.  In recent years, there has been significant debate over the amount of fees paid by broadcasters, with broadcast interests arguing that the FCC’s allocation of its workforce overestimated the number of employees working on broadcast matters.  In the proposal released this week, the FCC appeared to agree, allocating to other industries the work done by certain employees who were at least partially counted against broadcasters in the past.  This resulted in a proposal for the total fees to be paid by broadcast interests to decrease from the $62.07 million paid in 2022 to $55.68 million for 2023. 

The Commission will take comments on the proposed allocations and come up with final numbers late in the summer.  In recent years, the final order setting the fees has been released right around the Labor Day weekend.  Fees are typically paid in mid to late September (because they must be paid before the new fiscal year begins on October 1).

Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comments on Proposed Annual Regulatory Fees – Proposal Includes a Decrease in Fees To Be Paid By Broadcasters

The fear that AM radio will disappear from the car has been high on broadcasters’ lists of concerns in recent months as several car makers, including Ford, have suggested that receivers would be dropped from new models.  The issue was addressed last weekend in a front-page story in the Washington Post.  It has been highlighted by recent Congressional letters to car makers urging them to continue to include AM in cars for many reasons, including the ubiquity of the signals even in rural areas and the importance of AM for conveying emergency messages throughout the country.  Now, there is a legislative proposal to require that AM be included in cars.  Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), along with Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), and J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Representatives Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05), Tom Kean, Jr. (NJ-07), Rob Menendez (NJ-08), Bruce Westerman (AR-04), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) introduced the AM for Every Vehicle Act, which would require that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a rulemaking proceeding, to be completed within one year, to mandate that AM be included in all cars sold in the US as a standard feature, without any additional cost to new car buyers.  In addition, until the effective date of the new rule, before any car could be sold without an AM radio, the seller would need to have “clear and conspicuous labeling” to inform any buyer that the car does not have an AM radio. 

The bill would also require the Government Accountability Office to study whether there was any other available technology to replicate the reach and effectiveness of AM in delivering emergency alerts to the public.  Any alternative system would have to reach 90% of the population of the US.  The study would also need to review the cost of any alternative system.  The GAO would brief the appropriate Congressional committees about the study within one year and deliver the report to Congress within 180 days of the briefing, presumably to allow Congress to reassess any mandate imposed by this Act.  The FCC’s role in the process is limited.  The FCC is to coordinate with NHTSA in their rulemaking to mandate AMs in cars, and with the GAO in its study.  But it is the transportation safety issues that are driving this push to mandate AM in cars, not issues in the FCC’s jurisdiction.

Continue Reading AM For Every Vehicle Act Introduced in House and Senate to Mandate AM Radio in Cars

Yesterday, the FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing that it was repealing the COVID related guidance released in March 2020 that allowed broadcasters, local cable operators, and other media companies subject to the requirements that political candidates be offered Lowest Unit Rates during pre-election periods, to offer free advertising time to advertisers and other local businesses without those spots being considered in calculating the LUC during the periods that these spots were running.  This accommodation by the FCC was offered in the early days of the pandemic when the advertising market collapsed as many local businesses (like movie theaters, restaurants, travel companies, theme parks, and others) had nothing to advertise as so many businesses were closed by health concerns.  Broadcasters needed to fill commercial time, and wanted to support their customers and other local businesses who were struggling during those early days of the pandemic.  The FCC allowed broadcasters to give free advertising time to businesses without considering those spots in any LUC calculation, as long as those spots were not directly tied to an advertising contract.  A broadcaster could not promise an advertiser this free time in a way which tied that free time to the purchase of an advertising schedule, but the broadcaster could just voluntarily run those ads many more times than the contract provided to fill the broadcaster’s unsold inventory and to help the local business.  Or the broadcaster could, without LUC implications, run spots promoting local businesses in other ways (e.g., by providing lists of stores open during the pandemic, or restaurants providing take-out services), even if the business was also buying advertising time, as long as the extra promotion was not tied to the paid schedule.  See our articles here and here for more about this policy. 

With the pandemic emergency now declared over by the federal government, the FCC believes that this specific accommodation can come to an end.  This does not necessarily mean that there are no circumstances in which a broadcaster might be able to offer free time without LUC implications.  There may be circumstances where a potential advertiser is not currently running ads on a broadcast station, where the station agrees to give the business free ad time to try out broadcast advertising to see if it would help their business.  There are old FCC cases suggesting that free packages in limited circumstances, principally where there are no paid ads for those businesses running on the station at all, may still not affect LUC.  These instanced are limited, and you should consult your attorney about where this limited exception might apply.  But if you are running ads for an advertiser, and because you want to enhance the value of the advertising that the advertiser has purchased by giving them additional ad time, with the end of the COVID policy, those additional spots likely need to be considered in computing the price of spots offered to candidates in the political windows – 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before any general election. 

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 Bureau released a Public Notice announcing that EEO Mid-Term Reviews for radio and television stations will start with review of the Annual EEO Public File Reports filed by radio stations in the District of Columbia, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia.  Reports for those stations are due to be uploaded to each station’s online public inspection file by June 1, 2023, the fourth anniversary of the June 1, 2019 filing deadline for those stations’ last license renewal application.  On a rolling basis through April 1, 2027, stations licensed in all other states will be subject to the Mid-Term Review on the fourth anniversary of the filing deadline for their most recent license renewal application.  In the Mid-Term Review, the FCC will review the two most recent Annual EEO Public File Reports.  Mid-Term Review is only required for radio employment units with 11 or more full-time employees.  Thus, radio stations must now indicate when they upload their annual EEO Public File Report whether their employment unit (a commonly controlled cluster of stations in the same geographic area that have at least one common employee) has 11 or more full-time employees, using a checkbox now included in the EEO folder in the online public file.  All TV stations with 5 or more full-time employees will undergo a Mid-Term review.  As only station with 5 or more full-time employees need to complete the Annual EEO Public File Report, the question about the number of employees is not necessary for TV.  The upload of the public file report by a TV station means that the mid-term review of its EEO performance is required.  See our Broadcast Law Blog article here for more on the EEO Mid-Term Review, and the new reporting requirement for radio stations.
  • The FCC recently issued a Report and Order updating its Part 74 rules for LPTV and TV translator stations, to reflect their termination of analog operations as of July 13, 2021.  These rule changes, which do not materially affect the basic regulatory obligations of LPTV or TV translators now operating with digital facilities, were published in the Federal Register this week, meaning that most will be effective on June 12, 2023.  The June 12 effective date does not apply to rules that change paperwork obligations, as these changes must undergo a Paperwork Reduction Act Review and will become effective after the FCC publishes notice of the Office of Management and Budget’s approval of those changes in a subsequent Federal Register notice.  In a previous weekly update, we noted some of the changes adopted in this Order.
  • The Media Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing a $16,000 fine for a licensee’s alleged unauthorized operation of an LPTV station in Pittsburgh.  The fine stemmed from the 2019 displacement of the station from Channel 31 to Channel 10.  Between October 2019 and March 2023, the station operated on Channel 31 with reduced power to prevent co-channel interference to a full-power TV station without Special Temporary Authority (STA) to do so.  The fine was for three and a half years of unauthorized operations as the licensee failed to request an STA to operate at reduced power on Channel 31 during the pendency of its displacement application.  Because of prior rule violations by the licensee, the FCC declined to lower the proposed fine to the base amount – which would have been $13,000 ($3,000 for the failure to file the required STA request and $10,000 for the station’s unauthorized operations). 
  • The Media Bureau issued a fine in the amount of $750 to the operator of a TV translator station in Washington state for its failure to timely file an application for a “license to cover” after the station was constructed pursuant to its construction permit, and for its subsequent unauthorized operations after the station’s construction permit had expired.  As we have noted on our Blog, including in recent weekly summaries, once a station is constructed pursuant to a construction permit, the permittee must file a “license to cover” informing the FCC of the details of the completed construction (see our articles here, here, and here).  The Bureau previously proposed a forfeiture in the amount of $5,600 for this permittee’s violations but reduced the fine to $750 after the permittee demonstrated an inability to pay the higher amount. 
  • The Enforcement Bureau issued a $15,000 fine to an LPFM operator in Colorado for broadcasting promotional announcements for for-profit entities in exchange for consideration.  The Bureau concluded that over a period of 3 months in 2018 alone, the permittee aired more than 1,800 commercial announcements on its LPFM station.  LPFM stations are licensed as noncommercial broadcasters who, pursuant to Section 399b of the Communications Act and certain Commission rules, cannot run paid promotional announcements for for-profit entities.  The Bureau declined to reduce the fine as the licensee did not submit sufficient evidence of an inability to pay the proposed amount.  The fine would be about 7% of the station’s annual gross revenue which, under Commission precedent, is not excessive.
  • Two Congressmen wrote a letter to the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency asking FEMA to detail the harm to the EAS system that would result if AM radios are not include in automobiles.  This is part of the increasing Congressional concern over the plans of certain manufacturers to remove AM radios from new cars.  The Washington Post published a multi-page article, starting on the front page of its Sunday paper, on the issue of AM in cars, focusing on the importance of the local service provided for over a century by WTAW(AM) in Bryan-College Station, Texas.
  • The FCC’s Items on Circulation list (which lists draft orders circulating among the Commissioners for approval) this week removed a recently added item titled “Review of the Commission’s Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees; Amendment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2023, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.”  This likely means that we will see a public release early in the coming week of the Commission’s proposal for the annual regulatory fees to be paid by broadcasters in August or September.  The annual fees are paid by all entities that the FCC regulates to reimburse the government for the cost of FCC operations.  Whether the amount of the fees allocated to broadcasters is fair has been the subject of significant debate over the last year.

Yesterday, in our article about the recent FCC random audit of the EEO performance of over 200 radio and TV stations, we noted that the FCC also reviews the EEO performance of broadcasters in connection with complaints, license renewal applications, and at the midpoint of the license period of most TV stations and larger radio operations.  The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, in a Public Notice released yesterday, reminded us that this Mid-Term Review process is about to begin.  The FCC will be reviewing the performance of larger radio clusters in Maryland, DC, Virginia, and West Virginia, who are required to upload their Annual EEO Public Inspection File reports to their online public file by June 1.  While it is sometimes hard to believe how quickly time has passed, stations in these states are now at the mid-point of their licenses, as their last license renewal applications were filed on or before June 1, 2019. 

The FCC’s Mid-Term EEO review in the past was conducted through the filing of a Form 397 Report.  That report required that a licensee attach the last two years of EEO Public Inspection file reports and provide a contact person for EEO compliance at the station “employment unit” (a cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same geographic area sharing at least one employee).  In 2019, the FCC did away with that report, finding that the employment reports were already available in station online public inspection files (and that the person responsible for EEO was already identified in the materials submitted with the station’s last renewal application)(see our article here).  So instead of filing a form, the FCC will simply review what is already in the public file.  But the Mid-Term review is only required for larger radio groups, which required the FCC to implement a settings update in their online public files.

Continue Reading More FCC EEO News – FCC Reminds Broadcasters that EEO Mid-Term Reviews to Begin in June

At the end of April, we noted in our weekly summary of regulatory actions for broadcasters that the FCC had issued its first EEO audit notice for 2023 (available here), this time targeting over 200 radio and TV stations.  Those stations, and the station employment units (commonly owned stations serving the same area) with which they are associated, must provide to the FCC (by uploading the information to their online public inspection file) their last two years of EEO Annual Public File reports, as well as backing data to show that the station in fact did everything that was required under the FCC rules.  The response to the April audit is due to be uploaded to the public file of affected stations by June 8, 2023. 

While we noted the release of the audit notice, we thought that we should post our customary article describing the audit requirements and the basics of the FCC EEO rules as a reminder to all stations as to their general FCC EEO obligations.  The FCC has promised to randomly audit approximately 5% of all broadcast stations each year. As the response (and the audit letter itself) must be uploaded to the public file, it can be reviewed not only by the FCC, but also by anyone else with an internet connection anywhere, at any time.  The recent fine imposed on Cumulus Media for a late upload of a single EEO Annual Public File Report (see our article here) and the FCC’s pending consideration of the return of the EEO Form 395 reporting on the race and gender of all station employees (see our article here), shows how seriously the FCC takes EEO obligations. So, whether you are on the list or not, this is a good time for broadcasters to review what is generally required by the FCC’s EEO rules.

Continue Reading Reminder About Broadcasters’ FCC EEO Obligations After the April’s First 2023 Audit of Station Performance

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 continues to consider its Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on proposals to enhance the FCC’s requirements that each broadcaster verify that any program time sold to third parties (or any pre-produced programming received for free) does not come from a “foreign government entity,” i.e., a foreign government or one of its agents (see our articles here and here).  Among other things, the FCC’s Second Notice proposes the adoption of a detailed form that any buyer of program time on a station would need to sign so that the licensee can certify whether the buyer is or is not a “foreign governmental entity.”  NAB, in tandem with several broadcasters, recently submitted an ex parte filing highlighting the burden imposed by the detailed form which could intimidate buyers of broadcast time, especially local buyers like churches and community groups who may want to buy blocks of time.  The NAB stated that “[t]he burden of the rules falls almost entirely on broadcasters that have never aired – and will never air – foreign propaganda.” NAB thus urges the FCC to lighten this burden by clarifying that the foreign sponsorship identification diligence requirements do not apply to advertisements for commercial products and/or services of any length or format or to leases involving religious programming or locally produced and distributed programming. Also, citing the FCC’s less regulatory approach for ensuring nondiscrimination in advertising sales agreements, NAB et al. ask the FCC to “seriously consider ways to streamline substantially its regulatory approach to foreign sponsorship identification.”
  • In connection with the continuing battle by Standard General to acquire TEGNA’s television stations (find previous updates on this proceeding on our Broadcast Law Blog noted here), including the FCC’s designation of the associated assignment/transfer applications for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), we previously reported that Senator Ted Cruz and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers sent a joint letter to FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel asking the FCC to provide detailed information about, among other things, the circumstances surrounding and the FCC’s rationale for designating the matter for hearing.  In her recent response, Chairwoman Rosenworcel stated that the FCC’s ability to share the requested information was limited because the matter was subject to pending litigation, and because the proposed transaction remains active at the FCC.  The Chairwoman also stated that “many of the questions contained in your letter are addressed in either the Hearing Designation Order issued in this case or the Commission’s Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed recently with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,” both of which are publicly available documents. 
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director jointly issued an Order to Pay or Show Cause initiating a proceeding to revoke an AM station’s license due to the licensee’s failure to pay delinquent FCC regulatory fees and associated interest, administrative costs, and penalties.  Specifically, the licensee had unpaid regulatory fee debts for fiscal years 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2022.  Consistent with the FCC’s prior practice, the Order gives the licensee 60 days to either submit documented evidence that all debts have been paid in full or show cause why the payment is inapplicable or should be waived or deferred.  The Order further notifies the licensee that failure to provide such evidence of payment or to show cause within the time specified may result in revocation of its license.
  • The FCC issued a Public Notice requesting comment on an FM licensee’s request for an FCC ruling that would allow it to transfer control of its FM station in Cape Vincent, New York, near the Canadian border and the Ontario city of Kingston, where the new foreign ownership would be in excess of the 25% foreign ownership benchmarks set forth in Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act.  The requested ruling would (1) permit up to 100% aggregate foreign investment (voting and equity) in the licensee, and (2) specifically approve certain foreign investors to hold more than 5% equity and/or voting interest in the licensee.  The ruling was necessitated by a proposed transfer of 100% control of the licensee to a Delaware corporation whose sole shareholder is a Canadian corporation, which is in turn is owned by two Canadian citizens and their respective family trusts.  In total, the transaction requires the FCC to specifically approve six Canadian entities, individuals or trusts that would hold indirect ownership interests in the licensee.  Comments are due June 5, and reply comments are due June 20. On our Blog, we’ve noted other cases where the FCC has approved 100% foreign ownership of US broadcast stations (see, for instance, our articles here and here).

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 Bureau issued the first of its Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) audit letters for 2023 to randomly selected radio and television stations. Each year, approximately five percent of all radio and television stations are selected for EEO audits. A list of the radio and television stations included in this audit as well as the text of the April 24, 2023 audit letter is available here and at the Enforcement Bureau’s EEO headline page on the FCC website at: https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/eb-eeo/equal-employment-opportunity-headlines.  The deadline for the selected stations to upload responses to their FCC-hosted online public inspection file is June 8, 2023.
  • The NAB filed a petition with the US Court of Appeals for a “writ of mandamus” to force the FCC to resolve its 2018 Quadrennial Review.  As we wrote on our Broadcast Law Blog, the FCC started its 2022 Quadrennial Review in December despite not having concluded its 2018 review.  The 2018 Review addresses issues including whether to relax the local radio ownership rules, whether to provide specific guidance as to when one entity can acquire two TV stations in the same market (rather than the ad hoc waiver standard currently in effect), and whether to abolish the rule that prohibits an ownership combination of any two of the Top 4 TV networks. Even if successful, the Court’s mandamus order likely would not require that the FCC reach a particular decision in the 2018 review.  Instead, an order would just require that the Commission reach a conclusion in the proceeding. 
  • The Enforcement Bureau issued sixteen warnings to New York City and New Jersey landowners for allegedly allowing pirate radio broadcasts from their properties.  These Notices of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting (available here) target properties identified by Bureau field agents as sources of pirate radio transmissions during the Bureau’s 2022-2023 New York Pirate Sweeps. Under the PIRATE Act adopted in 2020, the FCC must conduct an annual sweep looking for offenders in the top 5 most active markets for pirate radio.  The Notices formally notify landowners of the illegal broadcasting activity purportedly occurring on their property; inform them of their potential liability of over $2 million for permitting such activity to occur on their properties; demand proof that the illegal broadcasting has ceased; and request identification of the individual(s) engaged in the illegal broadcasting.
  • The FCC will consider at its May 18 monthly open meeting its 2022 Notice of Inquiry that explores opportunities to open the 12.7-13.25 GHz (12.7 GHz) band for next-generation wireless services. This week, the FCC released a draft of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order stemming from the Inquiry to be considered at that May 18 meeting.  Licensed services currently in the 12.7 GHz band whose operations could be affected include satellite communications and mobile TV pickup operations (for more background, see our articles here and here).  The FCC’s draft would formally propose and seek comment on rules that would authorize mobile broadband and other expanded uses in some or all of the 550 MHz of spectrum in the 12.7 GHz band.  If the NPRM is adopted as drafted, it would, among other things, propose to grandfather, relocate, and/or repack incumbent non-federal licensees in the 12.7 GHz band.  In addition, the Order would direct fixed and mobile Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) licensees in the 12.7 GHz band to certify the accuracy of all information reflected on each license, including whether the facilities are operating as authorized.
  • The Media Bureau rejected one of two mutually exclusive applications for a construction permit for a new NCE FM station at Ketchum, Idaho, and granted the surviving application.  The applications were filed during the November 2021 NCE FM filing window.  Last year, the Bureau identified numerous defects in one application and offered the applicant 30 days to submit a corrective filing.  In response, the applicant revised its application to specify new coordinates for the proposed station’s transmitter.  The Bureau found the amendment was unacceptable because it was a major amendment (since its revised 60 dBu contour did not overlap the 60 dBu contour in its original application) and created additional overlap with the other application with which it was already in conflict.  Because the applicant did not remedy all the deficiencies in its application with the sole opportunity to file a corrective amendment that the FCC allows mutually exclusive applicants, the FCC dismissed that application. The opposing application thus became a “singleton,” and the Bureau granted it.
    • In a similar case, the Media Bureau affirmed the grant of an application for a new NCE FM construction permit at Central Gardens, Texas and dismissed three mutually exclusive applications.  In so doing, the Bureau found that even after recalculating the coverage area proposed by each applicant, none of the applicants were eligible for points under “the best technical proposal” criterion because no applicant proposed to serve at least 10% more area and population than the next best proposal, as required to gain such a preference.  The decision on other comparative criteria was thus upheld.
  • We have been reporting on the continuing battle by Standard General to acquire TEGNA’s television stations (find previous updates on this proceeding on our Broadcast Law Blog noted here), including the FCC’s designation of the associated assignment/transfer applications for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).  That hearing (which has proceeded while Standard simultaneously pursued relief, thus far unsuccessfully, in court and before the full FCC) took a turn on April 27 when the ALJ issued an order suspending the hearing, finding that the hearing required discovery that, along with resolving the parties’ access to confidential information, would extend the proceeding well beyond Standard’s May 22, 2023 deadline for action.  Thus, rather than requiring the parties to spend time and resources on a potentially moot proceeding, the ALJ suspended the hearing.  If Standard finds a way to keep the transactions alive past May 22, then, presumably, the ALJ will resume the hearing.  The ALJ ordered Standard/TEGNA to file a status report on or before June 1, 2023, to update the record.  In the interim, various Congressional leaders and interest groups have weighed in (see the NAB blog here), urging the FCC to act on the application before the May 22 deadline rather than requiring the hearing. 
  • Shifting to must-carry issues, the Media Bureau denied a market modification petition filed by a commercial television station licensed to Fort Bragg, CA.  Market modification is the statutory process by which, as in this case, a commercial television station may seek to add communities to its DMA and thereby expand the zone where it may assert must-carry rights.  Fort Bragg is in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA DMA, and the station sought in its petition to add Santa Rosa, CA to that DMA so it could compel the cable operator there to carry it.  After reviewing the petition according to the statutory market modification criteria and reviewing the evidence required under the FCC’s market modification rules, the Bureau denied the petition, weighing factors including that (i) the station’s historic carriage by other MVPDs in Santa Rosa only entitled it to a slight preference; (ii) Fort Bragg is 110 road miles from Santa Rosa; (iii) the station’s 41 dBu noise limited service contour did not reach Santa Rosa, and the station’s translator coverage cannot compensate for this in a market modification case; (iv) the station had failed to demonstrate meaningful economic connections between Fort Bragg and Santa Rosa; and (v) the station’s local programming was not sufficient enough to qualify as “coverage or other local service” to Santa Rosa.
  • The Media Bureau entered into a consent decree with an AM station to resolve the station’s repeated failure to timely place records in its online public inspection file.  The consent decree requires the station to adopt a public file compliance plan but does not impose a fine.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, this week we published our monthly look ahead to the regulatory dates of importance to broadcasters in May and early June. 

May is relatively light on scheduled regulatory deadlines for broadcasters, but the following dates are worthy of note.  In addition, always remember to keep in touch with your legal and regulatory advisors to make sure that you don’t overlook any regulatory deadlines that are specific to your station.

Comments are due on May 15, with reply comments due on June 13, on the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting comment on a variety of proposed rules implementing the Low Power Protection Act (LPPA).  The LPPA provides certain low power television stations in small markets with a “limited window of opportunity” to apply to become Class A television stations with primary status, protecting them from interference from new or improved full-power stations.  The FCC is seeking comment on interpreting the eligibility requirements for stations seeking this status.

Continue Reading May Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Rulemaking Comments on Various TV Issues and More

Last week’s announcement of the settlement between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems certainly dominated the popular press and the discussions among most TV pundits, highlighting the law of defamation for anyone who follows the news.  While the case illustrates the principles that we have written about many times on this blog (see, for instance, our articles here and here), the settlement illustrates for broadcasters and other media companies the real risks that exist when disseminating content that is false and could harm the reputation or business prospects of any recognizable individual or group.

Most particularly, the Fox case sends the message to media companies that defamation claims against public figures are alive and well and have the potential to result in substantial liability. While the bar to a party’s success in raising such a claim remains high, it is not insurmountable.  On this blog, we’ve written less about issues arising from news coverage than those that arise in connection with political advertising.  The same issues that arose in the Fox case can arise in cases where broadcasters run political ads knowing or with reason to believe that they are false.  Thus, our past warnings regarding the  need to be vigilant in assessing non-candidate attacks on other candidates or recognizable individuals remains more important today than  ever, as the Fox case has highlighted the potential path to riches some attacked individuals may see when false attack ads run on broadcast stations or other media.

Continue Reading Fox-Dominion Settlement Focuses Light on Defamation Claims – Broadcasters Beware of Airing Untrue Political Ads