Articles Posted in

Published on:

By , and

February 1 is the deadline for broadcast stations licensed to communities in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma to place their Annual EEO Public File Report in their Public Inspection File and post the report on their station website. 

Under the FCC’s EEO Rule, all radio and television station employment units (“SEUs”), regardless of staff size, must afford equal opportunity to all qualified persons and practice nondiscrimination in employment.

In addition, those SEUs with five or more full-time employees (“Nonexempt SEUs”) must also comply with the FCC’s three-prong outreach requirements.  Specifically, Nonexempt SEUs must (i) broadly and inclusively disseminate information about every full-time job opening, except in exigent circumstances, (ii) send notifications of full-time job vacancies to referral organizations that have requested such notification, and (iii) earn a certain minimum number of EEO credits based on participation in various non-vacancy-specific outreach initiatives (“Menu Options”) suggested by the FCC, during each of the two-year segments (four segments total) that comprise a station’s eight-year license term.  These Menu Option initiatives include, for example, sponsoring job fairs, participating in job fairs, and having an internship program.

Nonexempt SEUs must prepare and place their Annual EEO Public File Report in the Public Inspection Files and on the websites of all stations comprising the SEU (if they have a website) by the anniversary date of the filing deadline for that station’s license renewal application.  The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the SEU’s EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and the licensee must maintain adequate records to document those activities.

For a detailed description of the EEO Rule and practical assistance in preparing a compliance plan, broadcasters should consult The FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies – A Guide for Broadcasters published by Pillsbury’s Communications Practice Group. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • TV Broadcaster Faces $150,000 Fine for Failure to Negotiate Retransmission Consent in Good Faith
  • Sponsorship ID and Political File Violations Lead to $500,000 Consent Decree for Radio Broadcaster
  • $26,000 Fine for Georgia Radio Station EEO Rule Violations

 FCC Finds That TV Broadcaster Failed to Negotiate Retransmission Consent in Good Faith

Responding to a complaint by a cable TV provider, the Federal Communications Commission found that a broadcaster failed to negotiate retransmission consent for its New York TV station in good faith.  The enforcement action involves a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) proposing a $150,000 fine against the broadcast licensee.  The licensee was represented in the negotiations by another broadcaster who provides services to the station at issue.

Under Section 325 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), TV stations and multichannel video programming distributors (i.e., cable and satellite TV providers) have a duty to negotiate retransmission consent agreements in good faith.  In a 2000 Order, the FCC adopted rules relating to good faith negotiations, setting out procedures for parties to allege violations of the rules.  The Order established a two-part good faith negotiation test.  Part one of the test is a list of objective negotiation standards, the violation of any of which is deemed to be a per se violation of a party’s duty to negotiate in good faith.  Part two of the test is a subjective “totality of the circumstances” test in which the FCC reviews the facts presented in a complaint to determine if the combined facts establish an overall failure to negotiate in good faith.

In this case, the cable provider complained that the broadcaster, through its negotiator, proposed terms for renewal of the parties’ agreement that would have prohibited either party from filing certain complaints with the FCC after execution of the agreement.  For its part, the broadcaster did not dispute that it proposed the terms in question, but argued that (1) “releasing FCC-related claims or withdrawing FCC complaints is not novel,” (2) “parties typically agree to withdraw good faith negotiation complaints once retransmission consent agreements have been reached,” and (3) no violation could have occurred since the proposed term was not included in the final agreement reached.

The FCC disagreed, stating that its 2000 Order made clear that proposing terms which foreclose the filing of FCC complaints is a presumptive violation of the good faith negotiation rules.  The FCC also disagreed with the broadcaster’s contention that terms not included in a final agreement could not violate the good faith rules.  Finally, while the licensee argued that it was not responsible for actions taken by the party negotiating on its behalf, the FCC reiterated that licensees are responsible for the actions of their agents, and the licensee in this case delegated negotiation of the agreement to its agent.

Relying upon statutory authority and its Forfeiture Policy Statement, the FCC arrived at a proposed fine of $150,000.  The Forfeiture Policy Statement establishes a base fine of $7,500 for violating the cable broadcast carriage rules, and the FCC asserted that the alleged violations continued for 10 days (the time period from first proposing the terms at issue and the signing of the agreement without them), yielding a base fine of $75,000.  The FCC then exercised its discretion to upwardly adjust the proposed fine to $150,000, asserting that the increase was justified based on the licensee’s financial relationship with a large TV company, its prior rule violations, and the FCC’s view that a larger fine was necessary to serve as a meaningful deterrent against future violations.

Repeated Violations of Sponsorship ID and Political File Rules Lead to $500,000 Consent Decree

A large radio station group entered into a consent decree with the FCC’s Media Bureau, agreeing to pay a $500,000 civil penalty for two of its stations’ violations of sponsorship identification laws and the Political File rule.

Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the FCC’s Rules require broadcast stations to identify the sponsor of any sponsored content broadcast on the station.  This requirement applies to all advertising, music, and any other broadcast content if the station or its employees received something of value for airing it.  The FCC has said that the sponsorship identification laws are “grounded in the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to know who seeks to persuade them . . . .” Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

The deadline to file the 2023 Annual Children’s Television Programming Report with the FCC is January 30, 2024, reflecting programming aired during the 2023 calendar year.  In addition, commercial stations’ documentation of their compliance with the commercial limits in children’s programming during the 2023 calendar year must be placed in their Public Inspection File by January 30, 2024.

Overview

The Children’s Television Act of 1990 requires full power and Class A television stations to: (1) limit the amount of commercial matter aired during programs originally produced and broadcast for an audience of children 12 years of age and under, and (2) air programming responsive to the educational and informational needs of children 16 years of age and under.  In addition, stations must comply with paperwork requirements related to these obligations.

Since its passage, the FCC has refined the rules relating to these requirements a number of times.  The current rules provide broadcasters with flexibility that prior versions of the rules did not in scheduling educational children’s television programming, and modify some aspects of the definition of “core” educational children’s television programming.  Quarterly filing of the commercial limits certifications and the Children’s Television Programming Report have been eliminated in favor of annual filings.

Commercial Television Stations

Commercial Limitations

The FCC’s rules require that stations limit the amount of “commercial matter” appearing in programs aimed at children 12 years old and younger to 12 minutes per clock hour on weekdays and 10.5 minutes per clock hour on the weekend.  The definition of commercial matter includes not only commercial spots, but also (i) website addresses displayed during children’s programming and promotional material, unless they comply with a four-part test, (ii) websites that are considered “host-selling” under the Commission’s rules, and (iii) program promos, unless they promote (a) children’s educational/informational programming, or (b) other age-appropriate programming appearing on the same channel.

Licensees must upload supporting documents to the Public Inspection File to demonstrate compliance with these limits on an annual basis by January 30 each year, covering the preceding calendar year.  Documentation to show that the station has been complying with this requirement can be maintained in several different forms.  It must, however, always identify the specific programs that the station believes are subject to the rules, and must list any instances of noncompliance.

Core Programming Requirements

To help stations identify which programs qualify as “educational and informational” for children 16 years of age and under, and determine how much of that programming they must air to demonstrate compliance with the Children’s Television Act, the FCC has adopted a definition of “core” educational and informational programming, as well as three different safe harbor renewal processing guidelines that establish a minimum of 156 hours of Core Programming that stations must air each year to receive a staff-level license renewal grant.  Stations should document all Core Programming that they air, even where it exceeds the safe harbor minimums, to best present their performance at license renewal time. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

If there was any doubt that the late-2023 confirmation of Anna Gomez as the fifth commissioner would bring a flurry of FCC activity in 2024, the FCC has laid those questions to rest. In addition to a $150,000 good faith NAL, $500,000 sponsorship ID consent decree, $26,000 EEO report NAL, and some public file NALs, the FCC this week released two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking of potential interest to broadcast licensees.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Given that the name of this site is CommLawCenter, our focus is generally on communications law and regulation.  More accurately, however, our focus is on legal developments that affect the media and telecom industries, even when they emanate from entities other than Congress or the FCC.  This is particularly true where a change in non-communications laws could have an outsize impact on the communications industry.  For that reason, we have in the past written about changes involving a variety of employment matters, including who is entitled to overtime pay and when does an intern need to be paid?

Because of that industry focus, being a good communications lawyer often requires more subject matter versatility than most lawyers will ever need.  However, it is certainly helpful to also have access to the excellent group of employment lawyers at Pillsbury, which brings me to today’s topic–last week’s release by the Department of Labor of a new final rule replacing the prior test for determining whether a worker is an employee (entitled to overtime and other benefits) or an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The new DOL rule restores the six-factor “economic realities” test used during the Obama administration, which generally makes it harder to classify a worker as an independent contractor by focusing on the degree to which the worker is economically dependent on the “employer.”  This replaces the two-factor test adopted by the DOL during the Trump administration, which focused principally on two factors–the employer’s degree of control over the work and the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss.

The six factors of the new test are:

  1. The opportunity for profit or loss depending on the worker’s managerial skill
  2. Investments by the worker and the potential employer in the work being produced
  3. The degree of permanence of the work relationship
  4. The nature and degree of the worker’s control over the work
  5. The extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business
  6. Whether the work performed requires special skills or initiative

A far more detailed description of the new test and how each of these factors enters into the determination (and may interact with a state’s own employment laws) can be found in a pithy advisory from Pillsbury’s employment team on the subject: Employers Face Greater Misclassification Risk Under Resurrected Federal Independent Contractor Rule, Opening Door to Substantial Liability.  It is well worth the read, particularly given the substantial costs and penalties faced by businesses found to have misclassified employees as independent contractors.  It is also time to review your prior classifications of workers as independent contractors to make sure they still hold up under the new rule.

 

Published on:

By

With the Iowa Republican Caucus happening in mid-January and dozens of additional primaries and caucuses to follow before the 2024 general election, broadcasters need to be aware of the use of artificial intelligence (AI), deepfakes and synthetic media in political advertising and the various laws at play when such content is used. These laws seek to ensure that viewers and listeners are made aware that the person they are seeing or the voice they are hearing in political advertising may not be who it looks like or sounds like. Campaigns, political committees, super PACs, special interest groups and other political advertisers are using AI, deepfakes and synthetic media in advertisements, making it easier to mislead and misinform viewers and listeners.

Continue reading →