Articles Posted in

Published on:

By , and

Today, the Federal Communications Commission released its Report and Order setting this year’s annual regulatory fee amounts.  Payments will be made electronically via the FCC’s Commission Registration System (CORES), but the FCC has yet to announce the date the system will open or the date the fees are due.  Given that the fees must be collected before the end of this month, that announcement is expected very soon.

For fiscal year (FY) 2024, the FCC will be collecting a total of $390,192,000 to fund the FCC’s operations, the same amount as last year.  For the second year in a row, however, broadcasters will see a decrease in their regulatory fees.  As we noted in 2023, this decrease can be credited at least in part to the years-long effort by state broadcasters associations and the NAB to persuade the FCC to reevaluate its methodology for allocating regulatory fees and to expand the pool of entities that are charged regulatory fees.  These past few years have seen significant progress on the first initiative, resulting in this year’s reduced fees, but the battle to convince the FCC to expand its payor base (as dictated by the governing statute) continues.

For television stations, the FCC will use the same population-based methodology for FY 2024 as it used in FY 2023.  However, the FCC has adopted a fee of $.006598 per-person-served for FY 2024, which is a decrease from the $.007799 per-person-served used for FY 2023 TV regulatory fees.  Some additional shifts will be caused by FY 2024 fees being the first to incorporate 2020 U.S. Census data into these calculations.

Radio broadcasters will also see a decrease in their regulatory fees this year, with a reduction of approximately 5% across the board.  To determine the precise regulatory fees owed, broadcasters should consult Appendices C (Radio) and G (Television) at the end of the Report and Order.

Another change for FY 2024 is the elimination of the temporary relief measures that were adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The FCC had provided relief to payors facing financial hardship as a result of the pandemic, including allowing regulatees in “red light” status (those already behind on regulatory fee or other payments to the FCC) to “request waiver, reduction, deferral, and/or installment payment of their FY 2023 regulatory fees, provided that those regulatees resolve all of the delinquent debt they owe to the Commission in advance of the Commission’s decision on their requests for relief.” Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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:

  • Florida Radio Station Faces $14,000 Proposed Fine for Contest Rule Violations
  • $6,500 Fines Targeted at Mississippi and Tennessee FM Translators for Late-Filed License Renewal Applications and Unauthorized Operation
  • FCC Continues Focus on Collecting Unpaid Regulatory Fees from Broadcasters

FCC Fines Florida Radio Station for Contest Rule Violations

The FCC proposed to fine a radio broadcaster $14,000 for violating the Commission’s Contest Rule while conducting a multi-station contest.  Specifically, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) asserting that the broadcaster failed to select and/or notify contest winners in a timely fashion, as required by the licensee’s announced contest terms.

Section 73.1216 of the FCC’s Rules requires a licensee to “fully and accurately disclose the material terms” of a contest it broadcasts or promotes and to conduct the contest “substantially as announced and advertised.”  Material terms include, among other things, eligibility restrictions, the time and means of selecting winners, and the extent, nature, and value of prizes.  Prizes must be awarded promptly, and the FCC has consistently found violations where stations failed to award prizes in accordance with the announced contest terms.

In April 2021, the FCC received a complaint alleging that one of the licensee’s radio stations had not conducted a contest in a manner “substantially as announced and advertised.”  The Enforcement Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to the licensee in August 2021.  In its November 2021 response, the licensee explained that during the first half of 2021, it had conducted a nationwide contest on 194 of its stations.  During the contest, each participating station announced a contest “keyword” once an hour, for eleven hours each day, for 27 days.  Listeners could qualify to win by submitting this keyword via text message or the internet before the end of the hour in which the word was announced.  One national winner would then be picked each hour from across all stations, creating 297 winners (11 per day x 27 days).  The prize was a $1,000 check and winners were to be notified within 72 hours, according to contest terms.

Upon review, the licensee discovered that as a result of human error, the contest had not been conducted according to the announced contest terms.  In its LOI response, the licensee disclosed that (1) the part-time employee tasked with randomly selecting a national winner from among those qualified sometimes failed to do so; (2) the part-time employee’s manager did not provide supervision to confirm winners were selected; and (3) some winners were never notified they had been selected.  Ultimately, 50 winners out of 297 were not timely selected and/or notified.  After receiving the LOI but before submitting its response to the FCC, the licensee selected and notified 50 “replacement” winners.

The licensee argued that its actions did not amount to a violation of the rules because (1) an insubstantial number of winners that were not timely selected/notified compared to the total number of winners; (2) the contest terms only required the licensee to select “a total of up to, but not more than,” 297 verified winners; (3) it was not done intentionally, but was merely the “poor performance of two employees” that caused the selection/notification failures; and (4) the licensee went to “great lengths” to mitigate the selection/notification failures, eventually awarding prizes to all “winners” who completed the required paperwork. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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:

  • Failure to Pay Annual Regulatory Fees Trips Up Texas AM Radio Licensee
  • Communications Provider for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumers Resolves Investigation with Multimillion Dollar Consent Decree
  • Investigation into Unauthorized Transfer of Control of Colorado Radio Stations Leads to $3,400 Fine

License of Texas AM Station Could Be Revoked If Regulatory Fees Remain Unpaid

The licensee of a Texas AM station must either pay its overdue regulatory fees or demonstrate why the fees are inapplicable or should be waived or deferred.  According to the Federal Communications Commission’s records, the radio station currently owes unpaid regulatory fees exceeding $3,000.  The fees were originally due on September 30, 2022, and the outstanding amount continues to accrue interest and other charges until it is paid in full.

Under Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 1.1151 of the FCC’s Rules, the FCC has the authority to assess annual fees to cover its operational costs.  These fees are typically due in late September to ensure the agency is fully funded at the start of the federal government’s fiscal year in October.  Late payment of these fees incurs a 25% penalty plus interest.  If licensees fail to pay regulatory fees and any penalties or interest, the FCC may revoke their affected licenses and other authorizations.

Prior to issuing an Order to Pay or to Show Cause, the FCC sent a demand letter to the licensee.  When payment was not received, the Commission transferred the debt to the U.S. Department of Treasury.  Subsequently, the FCC requested the return of the matter from the Treasury Department in order to pursue further collection efforts.

The Order demands that within 60 days the licensee either pay the full outstanding debt or demonstrate why the fee is inapplicable or should be waived or deferred.  The Media Bureau noted in the Order that failing to provide evidence of payment or to demonstrate why the fee isn’t applicable by the 60-day deadline could result in revocation of the station’s license. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week released a highly anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on proposed disclosure requirements for political ads containing AI-generated content.  The item was adopted earlier this month by a 3-2 party-line vote, nearly two months after FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel first announced its circulation among the commissioners for consideration.

As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule would require radio and TV broadcasters to (1) inquire of any person making a request to buy airtime for political advertising whether the ad contains AI-generated content; (2) make on-air disclosures of AI use with regard to political ads containing AI-generated content immediately before or during their airing; and (3) include a disclosure of AI use in the station’s Political File records for each such ad buy.  While this post focuses on the NPRM’s broadcast-specific proposals, we note that it proposes similar obligations for cable operators, Direct Broadcast Satellite providers, and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service licensees engaged in program origination, as well as for Section 325 permit holders (those authorized to export programming for transmission back into the United States).

Aware that such rules might conflict with similar efforts by states and other federal agencies, the NPRM characterizes the proposed disclosure requirements as a “complement” to efforts to regulate AI in political advertising that are underway in various states and at the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which we wrote about here and here.  However, FEC Chairman Sean Cooksey made his contrary views clear in a letter last month to FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel in which he stated that the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction in this area and “the FCC lacks legal authority to promulgate conflicting disclaimer requirements only for political communications.”

The proposal would require broadcasters to do the following:

Duty of Inquiry:  Broadcasters would need to inform each political advertiser, at the time the station agrees to air a political ad, of the requirement that stations must air a disclosure for any ad that includes AI-generated content and then inquire of the buyer as to whether the ad includes such content.  While styled as a “simple inquiry,” the NPRM acknowledges various challenges that are likely to arise.  It seeks comments on how to deal with such situations, including, for example, where a station is working with a media placement agency that had no role in the creation of the ad and which may not know whether it includes AI-generated content, or the station receives political content from a network or syndicator and has no direct contact with the advertiser.

On-Air Disclosure:  A broadcast station that receives a candidate or issue ad containing AI-generated content would need to air a disclosure immediately before or during the ad to inform viewers of the ad’s use of AI.  The proposal contemplates and seeks comment on the following standardized language for the disclosure: “[The following]/[this] message contains information generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence.”  Once again, the NPRM acknowledges there are challenges broadcasters will face in complying with the proposed rule.  These include (a) what should a station do if it has received no response to its inquiry about AI use; (b) what should a station do if it was told by the person or entity buying the time that an ad contains no AI-generated content and is later informed by a credible third party that the ad does include AI-generated content (and who should qualify as a “credible third party?”); and (c) what should a station do when it receives political programming through a network and lacks any information from the advertiser on AI use as well as the ability to insert a disclosure in network-delivered programming?  The NPRM seeks comment on these and many other issues that may affect a station’s ability to comply with the proposed disclosure requirement.

Online Disclosure: Adding yet more to the burden on broadcasters, the NPRM proposes requiring broadcasters to include in their online Political Files the following written disclosure for each political ad containing AI-generated content: “This message contains information generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence.”

Because of the FCC’s limited jurisdiction, the proposed rules would apply only to certain FCC-regulated entities, doing nothing to address the use of AI in political ads that voters see and hear on social media or elsewhere.  As a result, it would impose a significant burden on regulated entities while leaving unregulated entities like social media—the primary source of deceptive political information—completely unregulated.  This would incentivize advertisers to put their AI ads on any media other than radio and TV, both because of their desire not to include disclosures and the added bureaucracy/delay involved in the multi-step process stations would need to follow with advertisers to determine if a disclosure is needed (and the added time needed to then insert such a disclosure). Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

On July 24, 2024, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released a decision in Consumers’ Research et al. v. FCC holding that the Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Fund (“USF”) contribution mechanism violates Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution and remanded the issue to the FCC for further proceedings.  The case stems from petitioner’s constitutional challenge of the First Quarter 2022 USF contribution amount.  The court explained that (1) USF contributions are a tax; (2) Congress may have improperly delegated the legislative power to tax to the FCC without any intelligible guiding principles; (3) the FCC, in turn, may have impermissibly delegated taxing power to private entities; and (4) even absent a definitive answer on these delegation questions, the combination of Congress’s broad delegation and the FCC’s sub-delegation to private entities “certainly amounts to a constitutional violation.”  The 9-7 decision reverses a March 2023 three-judge panel decision and creates a circuit split with the DC, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, which rejected similar arguments in July 2012, May 2023, December 2024, respectively. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Chairwoman Rosenworcel announced on July 16 that the Commission is considering adoption of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on proposals to regulate AI-generated robocalls. The draft NPRM, released this afternoon, is the outgrowth of a November 2023 Notice of Inquiry and follows several recent FCC actions intended to mitigate the potential for bad actors to use AI technology in robocalls to mislead consumers. Over the last year, the FCC (1) has declared that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) restrictions on the use of “artificial or prerecorded voices” apply to AI-generated voices; (2) proposed a multimillion dollar fine against a person suspected of causing illegal robocalls that used a voice artificially created to sound like President Biden; and (3) sent letters to major U.S. telecommunications companies requesting information about their efforts to prevent illegal robocalls that use AI technology from reaching customers. Separately, the FCC is also considering whether to adopt disclosure requirements for political advertising that uses AI-generated content.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week warned 13 property owners in the New York City area that illegal FM radio broadcasts were emanating from their properties, and that they could face multimillion-dollar fines if the transmissions do not promptly cease.

To operate a broadcast station, the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules require an FCC license. Those operating illegally are commonly referred to as “pirate” operators. These operations are frequently the target of FCC enforcement actions as they can, among other things, interfere with FCC-licensed broadcasts and disrupt emergency communications.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

August 1 is the deadline for broadcast stations licensed to communities in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin 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.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

This advisory is directed to television stations with locally-produced programming whose signals were carried by at least one cable system located outside the station’s local service area or by a satellite provider that provided the station’s signal to at least one viewer outside the station’s local service area during 2023. These stations may be eligible to file royalty claims for compensation with the United States Copyright Royalty Board. These filings are due by July 31, 2024.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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:

  • Louisiana TV Station Admonished for Lack of Non-Discrimination Clause in Advertising Contracts
  • $25,000 Fine for a Variety of Rule Violations by Florida Low Power FM Station Affirmed
  • FCC Proposes $367,436 Fine for Marketing Violations Involving WiFi Devices

FCC Media Bureau Admonishes TV Station for Lack of Non-Discrimination Clause in Advertising Contracts

The FCC’s Media Bureau admonished a Louisiana TV station for failing to include a non-discrimination clause in its advertising sales contracts.  While it stopped short of issuing a fine, the Bureau warned that future violations could result in harsher sanctions.

Since 2008, the FCC has required commercial radio and television stations to include explicit non-discrimination clauses in their ad sales contracts.  To ensure compliance, the FCC revised its broadcast license renewal application form in 2011 to require commercial broadcasters to certify that their ad sales contracts contain a non-discrimination clause making clear to advertisers that the station will not accept advertising placed with an intent to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.  If a licensee is unable to certify compliance, the FCC requires an attachment to the license renewal application explaining the circumstances and why such non-compliance should not be considered an obstacle to the station’s license renewal.

The TV station responded “No” to the non-discrimination certification in its license renewal application, noting that its advertising agreements did not contain a non-discrimination clause.  The station indicated, however, that it does not permit discrimination in its ad sales and that it would add a non-discrimination clause to its ad sales contracts going forward.

In light of the absence of any evidence that the station had actually engaged in discriminatory ad sales, the Media Bureau admonished the station, granted its license renewal application, and warned that any future violations could trigger fines or more severe sanctions.

While enforcement actions involving the FCC’s advertising non-discrimination requirements are uncommon, that is because most stations are able to make the necessary certification in their license renewal application.  Radio and television broadcasters should examine their advertising contracts to ensure they contain the necessary language and that their stations have in fact been meeting their obligation to prevent discrimination by race or ethnicity in advertising sales.

FCC Enforcement Bureau Denies Petition to Reconsider $25,000 LPFM Fine

The FCC Enforcement Bureau denied a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the licensee of a Florida low power FM radio station, finding unpersuasive the licensee’s argument that a $25,000 fine should be cancelled due to the licensee’s inability to pay.

A 2022 Forfeiture Order concluded that the licensee failed to: (1) operate the station according to the parameters of its license and the FCC’s rules; (2) make the station available for inspection by FCC field agents; and (3) properly maintain Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment. Continue reading →