Published on:

By

July 2014

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:

  • Multi-Year Cramming Scheme Results in $1.6 Million Fine
  • Violation of Retransmission Consent Rules Leads to $2.25 Million Fine
  • $25,000 Fine for Failure to Respond to FCC

Continued Cramming Practices Lead to Double the Base Fine

The FCC recently issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against a Florida telephone company for “cramming” customers by billing them for unauthorized charges and fees related to long distance telephone service.

The FCC had received more than 100 customer complaints against the company. The complaints alleged that the company had continued to bill the customers and charge them late fees after they had paid their final bills and canceled their service with the company. The FCC opened an investigation in response to the complaints and issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the company in July 2011, but the company did not submit a timely response. The FCC issued an NAL in 2011 proposing a $25,000 fine against the company for its failure to reply to the LOI, and ultimately issued a Forfeiture Order fining the company $25,000.

Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the “Act”) requires that that “[a]ll charges . . . in connection with . . . communication service shall be just and reasonable.” Prior decisions of the FCC have determined that placing unauthorized charges and fees on consumers’ phone bills is an “unjust and unreasonable” practice and is therefore unlawful.

The NAL provides information from 11 customer complaints detailing instances where customers attempted to cancel their service and continued to be charged late fees and other fees by the company. The FCC determined that the phone company did not have authorization to continue billing these customers after they canceled their service.

Although the FCC’s Forfeiture Guidelines do not provide a base fine for cramming, the FCC has settled on $40,000 as the base fine for a cramming violation. The NAL addressed 20 cramming violations, which would create a base fine of $800,000. However, the FCC determined that an upward adjustment of the fine was appropriate in this case because the unlawful cramming practices had been occurring since 2011, the company did not respond to the 2011 LOI, and there was a high volume of customers who received cramming charges. Therefore, the FCC increased the proposed fine by $800,000, resulting in a total proposed fine of twice the base amount, or $1.6 million.

Cable Operator’s Retransmission of Six Texas TV Stations Results in Multi-Million Dollar Fine

Earlier this month, the FCC issued an order against a cable operator for rebroadcasting the signals of six full-power televisions stations in Texas in violation of the FCC’s retransmission consent rules.

The cable operator serves more than 10,000 subscribers in the Houston Designated Market Area (“DMA”) in 245 multiple-dwelling-unit buildings and previously had retransmission consent agreements with the stations. However, those agreements expired in December 2011 and March 2012. The cable operator continued retransmitting the signals of those stations without extending or renewing the retransmission consent agreements, and the licensees notified the cable operator that its continued retransmissions were illegal. Subsequently, each licensee filed a complaint with the FCC.

In its May 2012 response to the complaints, the cable operator did not deny that it had retransmitted the stations without the licensee’s express written consent, but said that it had relied on the master antenna television (“MATV”) exception to the retransmission consent requirement. The cable operator noted that it had begun converting its buildings to MATV systems in November 2011 and had hoped to complete the installations before the retransmission agreements expired in December 2011, but did not complete the MATV installation until July 26, 2012.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

June 2014

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:

  • Bad Legal Advice Leads to Admonishment for Public File Violations
  • $10,000 Fine for Tower Violation
  • Missing Emergency Alert System Equipment Results in $6,000 Fine

Licensee’s Poor Financial Condition and Reliance on Bad Legal Advice Fend Off Fines

Earlier this month, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued an order against the former licensee of a Texas radio station admonishing the licensee but declining to impose $40,000 in previously proposed fines relating to public inspection file violations.
In December of 2010, agents from the Enforcement Bureau’s local office reviewed the station’s public inspection file and determined that, among other things, the file did not contain any quarterly issues-programs lists. In response, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), and ultimately a Forfeiture Order, imposing a fine of $25,000, which the licensee subsequently paid.

After the original NAL was issued, the station hired an independent consultant to assist it in ensuring that the station’s public inspection file was complete. In August of 2011, the licensee submitted a statement to the FCC in which it certified that all of the required documents had been placed in the station’s public inspection file. However, field agents visited the station again in October of 2011, and found that the public inspection file still did not contain any issues-programs lists. In response, the FCC issued two more NALs in June of 2012 (the “2012 NALs”) for the still-incomplete public inspection file and for the false certification submitted in response to the original NAL. The 2012 NALs proposed a $25,000 fine for providing false information to the FCC and a $15,000 fine for the still-missing issues-programs lists.

In this month’s order, the FCC analyzed the now-former licensee’s claim that it had engaged an independent consultant to assist it in responding to the original NAL and that it had subsequently placed documentation regarding issues-programs in its public inspection file. The FCC noted that the outside consultant’s advice that placing copies of the station’s daily program logs in the file would be adequate to meet the requirement was erroneous. However, since the licensee had sought to fix the problem by hiring a consultant and had relied on the consultant’s advice, the FCC concluded that the licensee had not negligently provided incorrect information to the Enforcement Bureau, and therefore the FCC did not impose the originally-proposed $25,000 fine for false certification.

In contrast, the FCC concluded that the former licensee had indeed willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules by not including issues-program lists in its public inspection file. The former licensee had, however, submitted documentation of its inability to pay and asked that it not be required to pay the proposed $15,000 fine. The FCC agreed that the former licensee had demonstrated its inability to pay, and therefore declined to impose the $15,000 fine.

In doing so, the FCC also noted that while “[r]eliance on inaccurate legal advice will not absolve a licensee of responsibility for a violation, [it] can serve as evidence that the licensee made an effort to assess its obligations, that its assessment was reasonable, if erroneous, and was made in good faith.” In light of all the facts, the FCC elected to formally admonish the former licensee, and warned that, should the former licensee later acquire broadcast licenses, it could face substantial monetary penalties, regardless of its ability to pay, for future rule violations.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a 6-3 decision released this morning, the Supreme Court didn’t just rain on Aereo’s parade, but drenched it. For a case involving fairly convoluted points of law, the Supreme Court’s decision is surprisingly straightforward: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, no amount of technology will change the fact that it is a duck.

At this early stage of the case–keep in mind this was just about whether an injunction against Aereo should have been issued by the lower courts for one specific type of copyright infringement–the question before the Court was whether Aereo’s system “performs” broadcasters’ copyrighted works, and whether that is a “public” performance. If so, Aereo’s operations infringe on broadcasters’ copyrights in that programming. Aereo’s argument in response was that since its system does nothing until activated by a subscriber, and even then only transmits a single private copy to that subscriber, Aereo was not involved in generating public performances.

The Court strongly disagreed, finding that an essential purpose of Congress’s passage of the Copyright Act of 1976 was to make clear that transmissions of broadcast programming by third-parties to the public (e.g., cable systems) create public performances that implicate copyright law. Specifically, the Court noted “the [Copyright] Act is unmistakable: An entity that engages in activities like Aereo’s performs,” and “the fact that Aereo’s subscribers may receive the same programs at different times and locations is of no consequence. Aereo transmits a performance of petitioners’ works ‘to the public.'”

Aereo’s argument that it is just a renter of receiving equipment fared no better, with the Court stating: “We conclude that Aereo is not just an equipment supplier and that Aereo ‘performs.'” Of note for those concerned about whether an Aereo decision for broadcasters might affect the public’s ability to store other data in the cloud, the Court agreed with the brief filed by the Department of Justice that there is an important distinction between members of the public storing their own content in the cloud and those using the Internet to access the content of others, finding that a transmission to “the public” for purposes of implicating the Copyright Act “does not extend to those who act as owners or possessors of the relevant product.”

However, the most interesting aspect of the decision is that the Court is far more hostile to Aereo than even the 6-3 vote would indicate. Some of the strongest arguments against Aereo are actually found in Justice Scalia’s dissent, which was joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. While criticizing the majority for its “looks like a cable system” premise, in making his best case for finding in favor of Aereo, Justice Scalia makes two telling statements. The first, after he argues that Aereo is just a passive conduit for subscribers’ content reception and therefore does not “perform” broadcasters’ copyrighted content, is his statement noting

“[t]hat conclusion does not mean that Aereo’s service complies with the Copyright Act. Quite the contrary. The Networks’ complaint that Aereo is directly and secondarily liable for infringing their public-performance rights (Section 106(4)) and also their reproduction rights (Section 106(1)). Their request for a preliminary injunction–the only issue before this Court–is based exclusively on the direct-liability portion of the public performance claim…. Affirming the judgment below would merely return this case to the lower courts for consideration of the Networks’ remaining claims.”

Justice Scalia then goes much further, stating:

“I share the Court’s evident feeling that what Aereo is doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks’ copyrighted programming ought not to be allowed. But perhaps we need not distort the Copyright Act to forbid it.”

He then proceeds to note again that there are other copyright infringement claims before the lower court that should be considered on remand, and that Congress is always free to modify the law to eliminate any perceived “loophole” if necessary.

As a result, while today’s ruling is a 6-3 decision in favor of granting an injunction against Aereo, it ultimately reads like a 9-0 rebuke of Aereo’s business plan. One of the most interesting legal analogies is also found in Justice Scalia’s dissent, where he likens Aereo to a copy shop where the shop owner plays no part in the content copied:

“A copy shop rents out photocopiers on a per-use basis. One customer might copy his 10-year-old’s drawings–a perfectly lawful thing to do–while another might duplicate a famous artist’s copyrighted photographs–a use clearly prohibited by Section 106(1).”

The reason this analogy is (perhaps unintentionally) revealing is that in the Aereo scenario, the subscriber can’t use the system to display his ten-year-old’s drawings; he can only display the content that Aereo puts on the shelf in its copy shop for the subscriber to access–all of which is copyrighted. Even if a particular program has entered the public domain, the broadcast signal–including its combination of program selections, current advertising, and station interstitials–is not in the public domain. In any event, Aereo has never attempted to limit its relay of content to subscribers to public domain materials (which admittedly would be the worst business plan ever).

While there had been some concern among broadcasters (and hope for Aereo supporters) after oral argument in this proceeding that Aereo was gaining traction with its claim that a ruling against Aereo was a ruling against innovation, the Court’s decision states that it sees today’s ruling as narrowly focused on the issue of transmission of broadcast signals, and that parties seeking to expand its principles to issues like cloud computing will have to wait until that issue is actually before the Court. In the meantime, the Court made clear that the only innovation it saw in Aereo was copyright infringement, and that has already been around for a long time.

Published on:

By

When the FCC voted at its March 31, 2014 meeting to deem television Joint Sales Agreements involving more than 15% of a station’s weekly advertising time as an attributable ownership interest, it announced that broadcasters that are parties to existing JSAs would have two years to modify or terminate those JSAs to come into compliance. However, the FCC’s Report and Order adopting that change to the rules was not released until April 15, 2014, and noted that the effective date of the rule change would be 30 days after the Report and Order was published in the Federal Register.

The Federal Register publication occurred on May 20, 2014, and the FCC today released a Public Notice confirming that the effective date of the JSA attribution rule is therefore tomorrow, June 19, 2014. At that time, the two-year compliance period will also commence, with the deadline for existing JSAs to be modified to come into compliance with the new rule being June 19, 2016. As a result, subject to any actions the courts may take on the matter, all new TV JSAs must comply with the FCC’s multiple ownership rules from their inception, and JSAs that were already in existence before the rule change can remain in place until June 19, 2016.

Published on:

By

May 2014

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:

  • FCC Proposes $11,000 Fine for Marketing of Unauthorized Device
  • $2,944,000 Fine for Robocalls Made Without Recipients’ Consent
  • Sponsorship Identification Complaint Leads to $185,000 Consent Decree
  • Premature Consummation of Transaction Results in $22,000 Consent Decree

Modifying Design of Parking Meter Requires New FCC Certification and Warning to Users

Earlier this month, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against a company that designs, develops, and manufactures parking control products (the “Company”). The NAL indicated the Company had marketed one of its products without first obtaining an FCC certification and for failing to comply with consumer disclosure rules. The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau proposed an $11,000 fine against the Company.

In August of 2013, the FCC received a complaint that a particular product made by the Company did not have the required FCC certification and that the product did not comply with consumer disclosure requirements. After receiving the complaint, the FCC’s Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the Company. The Company responded in the middle of March, at which time it described the product in question as a “parking meter that accepts electronic payments made with credit cards, smart cards, or Near Field Communications-enabled mobile device applications.” The response to the LOI indicated that the Company had received an FCC authorization in 2011 but had since refined the design of the product. Although one refinement involved relocating the antenna on the device, which increased the field strength rating from the level authorized in 2011, the Company assumed that the changes to the device qualified as “permissive changes” under Section 2.1043 of the FCC’s Rules. In addition, the Company admitted to marketing the refined product before obtaining a new FCC certification for the increased field strength rating, and that its user manual did not contain required consumer disclosure language. However, the Company had not actually sold any of the new parking meters in the U.S.

Section 302(b) of the Communications Act prohibits the manufacture, import, sale, or shipment of home electronic equipment and devices that fail to comply with the FCC’s regulations. Section 2.803(a)(1) of the FCC’s Rules provides that a device must be “properly authorized, identified, and labeled in accordance with the Rules” before it can be marketed to consumers if it is subject to FCC certification. The parking meter falls under this requirement because it is an intentional radiator that “can be configured to use a variety of components that intentionally emit radio frequency energy.” The Company’s product also meets the definition of a Class B digital device, in that it is “marketed for use in a residential environment notwithstanding use in commercial, business and industrial environments.” Under Section 15.105(b) of the FCC’s Rules, Class B digital devices “must include a warning to consumers of the device’s potential for causing interference to other radio communications and also provide a list of steps that could possibly eliminate the interference.”

The base fine for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000, and the base fine for marketing devices without adequate consumer disclosures is $4,000. The Company argued that even though it had marketed the device before it was certified, it had not sold any, and it promptly took corrective action after learning of the issue. The Enforcement Bureau declined to reduce the proposed fines because the definition of “marketing” does not require that there be a sale, and “corrective measures implemented after the Commission has initiated an investigation or taken enforcement action do not nullify or mitigate past violations.” The NAL therefore assessed the base fine for both violations, resulting in a total proposed fine against the Company of $11,000.

Unsolicited Phone Calls Lead to Multi-Million Dollar Fine

Earlier this month, the FCC issued an NAL against a limited liability company (the “LLC”) for making unlawful robocalls to cell phones. The NAL followed a warning issued more than a year earlier, and proposed a fine of $2,944,000. The LLC provides a robocalling service for third party clients. In other words, the LLC’s clients pay it to make robocalls on their behalf to a list of phone numbers provided by the client.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) prohibits robocalls to mobile phones unless there is an emergency or the called party has provided consent. These restrictions on robocalls are stricter than those on live calls because Congress found that artificial or prerecorded messages “are more of a nuisance and a greater invasion of privacy than calls placed by “live” persons.” The FCC has implemented the TCPA in Section 64.1200 of its Rules, which mirrors the statute.

The LLC received an LOI in 2012 from the Enforcement Bureau’s Telecommunications Consumers Division (the “Division”) relating to an investigation of the LLC’s services. The Division required the LLC to provide records of the calls it had made, as well as to submit sound files of the calls. This preliminary investigation revealed that the LLC had placed 4.7 million non-emergency robocalls to cell phones without consent in a three-month period. After making these findings, the Division issued a citation to the LLC in March of 2013, warning that making future calls could subject the LLC to monetary penalties and providing an opportunity to meet with FCC staff and file a written reply. The LLC replied to the citation in April of 2013, and met with FCC staff.

However, in June of 2013, the Division initiated a second investigation to ensure the LLC had stopped making illegal robocalls. The LLC objected, but produced the documents and audio files requested. The Division determined, by analyzing the materials and contacting customers who had received the prerecorded calls made by the LLC, that the Company made 184 unauthorized robocalls to cellphones after receiving the citation. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Just two months after assessing nearly $2 million in fines to cable operators for airing ads for the movie Olympus Has Fallen containing false EAS tones, the FCC today granted an 18-month extension of its 2013 waiver allowing the Federal Emergency Management Agency to continue to use false emergency tones in Public Service Announcements.

In this case, the tone being used is not the “broadcast” EAS tone, but the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) tone transmitted to cell phones and other wireless devices in an emergency. In the words of the FCC, “[t]he WEA Attention Signal is a loud, attention-grabbing, two-tone audio signal that uses frequencies and sounds identical to the
distinctive and familiar attention signal used by the EAS.”

According to the FCC’s waiver extension order, the FEMA PSAs are a reaction to the public being “startled or annoyed” when hearing the WEA tone for the first time, and then seeking to turn off all future alerts. The PSAs are aimed at teaching the public how WEA works and how their mobile devices will behave when receiving a WEA alert.

Given these facts, on May 31, 2013, the FCC granted an unprecedented waiver of the prohibition on airing false emergency tones to permit FEMA PSAs containing the WEA tone to be aired. However, that waiver was limited to one year. Since that year is about up, FEMA recently sought an extension, and by today’s order, the FCC has extended the waiver for an additional 18 months.

While FEMA indicates that it believes the announcements have been a success, it continues to receive negative media coverage and individual complaints about the WEA alerts. As a result, it wishes to continue distributing the PSAs for airing and needed today’s waiver to accomplish that.

Of course, while FEMA is the party that sought the waiver, it is broadcasters and cable operators that are typically found liable when a false emergency tone airs. Both of those groups should therefore be concerned that the FCC did not grant an unconditional waiver, but instead extended the waiver only to announcements that “mak[e] it clear that the WEA Attention Signals are being used in the context of the PSA and for the purpose of educating the viewing or listening public about the functions of their WEA-capable mobile devices and the WEA program.” As a result, the FCC warned that “leading off a PSA with a WEA Attention Signal, without warning, may be an effective attention-getting device, but it would violate the conditions of this waiver because of the effect that it could have on the listening or viewing public.”

Broadcasters and cable operators will therefore need to screen all FEMA PSAs containing an emergency tone to ensure it is a WEA (and not an EAS) tone, and that the PSA meets the FCC’s waiver conditions and therefore does not pose a risk of confusing the public as to whether an emergency is actually occurring. In other words, if FEMA runs afoul of this requirement in a future PSA, it is the broadcasters and cable operators airing it who will be facing the emergency.

Published on:

By

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are less than a week away in the Aereo case, and broadcasters are feeling pretty good about their chances. With the Department of Justice, Professor Nimmer (who, along with his father, quite literally wrote the book on copyright), and a host of other luminaries filing in support of the broadcasters’ position, the storyline looks a lot like broadcasters have portrayed it from the beginning: that this is a simple case of copyright infringement hidden behind a veil of modern technological obfuscation.

Sensing that such a storyline is fatal to its prospects, Aereo has responded by casting this case as an attack on consumers’ use of the cloud, and has attracted some allies based on that storyline. However, it is a pretty thin storyline, as few think that the country’s highest court is so careless as to draft a broadcast retransmission rights decision that accidentally destroys the world of cloud computing. The two are not tough to distinguish, and even if the Court secretly disliked cloud computing, it hardly needs to opine on the copyright implications of cloud computing to decide the Aereo question.

Still, lower courts have disagreed on these issues, and only a fool enters the Supreme Court certain that the court will rule in his favor. There are many moving parts, and if a case were easy to decide, it would not have made it to the Supreme Court. That is why both sides will be anxiously watching the oral arguments for hints as to where the various justices stand on the matter.

As of today, however, broadcasters have one less reason to sweat about the outcome. The Court announced yesterday that Justice Alito, who had previously recused himself from the case, is now able to participate. This is a significant development for broadcasters. Because the 2nd Circuit decision being appealed was in Aereo’s favor, Alito’s earlier recusal meant that the case would be heard by the remaining eight justices. That created the risk of a 4-4 tie, which would leave the adverse 2nd Circuit decision in place.

In that scenario, broadcasters would need to win 5 of the 8 possible votes in order to overturn the lower court decision. That can be a tall order, and impossible if it turns out that four justices are firmly on the Aereo side of the fence. With Alito no longer recused, broadcasters now have an additional avenue for scoring that fifth vote. In other words, it’s easier to attract 5 votes out of 9 than it is to get 5 votes out of 8. That means broadcasters are unlikely to find themselves losing on a tie vote, and if the rest of the court should split 4-4, Alito’s entry into the fray effectively gives broadcasters a free throw opportunity at the buzzer to score his vote and break that tie. Now broadcasters just need to convert on that opportunity.

Published on:

By

After Monday’s FCC meeting left television broadcasters facing higher expenses and lower revenues by restricting the use of Joint Sales Agreements and joint retransmission negotiations, broadcasters were due for some good news. Where the FCC is the bearer of bad news, it has often fallen to the courts to be the bearer of good news, generally by overruling the adverse FCC decision. Unfortunately, that process can take years, meaning that in Washington you have to take a very long term view of “the good outweighs the bad.”

This week, however, the FCC’s bad news was followed very quickly by the Supreme Court’s decision today in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. In McCutcheon, the Court ruled that while limits on political contributions to individual candidates continue to be permissible, overall limits on contributions to candidates and party committees are unconstitutional. In other words, the government can limit how much you donate to an individual candidate or party committee, but cannot limit the number of candidates or party committees you support with your donations.

While campaign finance reform will continue to be a hot-button issue, a direct effect of today’s decision will be to increase the war chests of candidates and parties through greater political donations. Much of those increased funds will ultimately be used for political advertising, redounding to the benefit of media in general, but particularly to local broadcasters.

The Court’s 5-4 decision was not particularly a surprise, as many saw McCutcheon as the sequel to 2010’s Citizens United decision, in which the Court found restrictions on political expenditures by corporations and unions to be unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court released its decision in Citizens United, we all understood the immediate financial implications for media, but no one was quite sure just how great that impact would be. It turned out to be very substantial, completing the multi-decade transition of political advertising from being a “not worth the regulatory headaches” obligation of broadcasters to now being a highly sought after segment of the overall advertising market. Indeed, there is no stronger validation of this than the fact that cash flow multiples used in station acquisitions are based on two-year averages, balancing political year revenue with revenue from a non-political year.

As in 2010, the question is not whether today’s decision will result in more ad revenue for media outlets, but how much more. Given that in recent years the number of donors bumping up against the now-unconstitutional cap measured in the hundreds rather than the thousands, the economic impact of today’s decision is unlikely to match that of Citizens United. However, it may have a more interesting effect. The limit on overall donations effectively forced a political contributor to pick and choose a small number of candidates to support with the maximum ($2600 at the moment) donation, and to turn away others because of the cap. The practical result was that donors tended to focus their contributions on candidates in hotly contested races where the contribution could have the most impact.

With today’s elimination of the overall cap, a donor can make the maximum individual donation to every federal political candidate it wishes to support. The likely result is an increased flow of political contributions to candidates in races previously deemed to be lost causes, creating tighter races through the influx of political ad dollars.

From a political standpoint, this means the number of hotly contested races around the country will increase. From an economic standpoint, it means political ad dollars will flow on a more geographically diverse basis, ensuring that a larger number of local stations benefit, rather than just those in swing states and swing districts. This will be welcome news for stations that previously found themselves missing out on political ad dollars while candidates and parties flung large sums at stations in nearby swing districts. By itself, it may not entirely remove the sting of Monday’s FCC actions, but given enough time, the courts may eventually produce some good news in that regard as well.

Published on:

By

While it has been around since 2009, Bitcoin has seen substantial media coverage in the past few months. Media outlets (as well as many other businesses) have been increasingly dabbling in the Bitcoin world, if for no other reason than to show they are up to date with the latest consumer fixations.

While numerous businesses have begun accepting Bitcoin transactions, the most likely place to find them in the media world is as contest prizes or as part of an advertiser promotion. Of course, one of the principal reasons for the novelty of Bitcoin is its goal of being an electronic currency unregulated by governments. As a result, how businesses have been treating their usage of bitcoins from an accounting and legal perspective is highly variable, since it is in many ways a new frontier.

That frontier changed significantly yesterday, when the IRS ruled that virtual currencies like Bitcoin are to be treated as property for federal tax purposes, with transactions using virtual currency subject to much the same tax treatment as those involving U.S. currency. Our own Jim Gatto, head of Pillsbury’s Social Media and Games Team, distributed a Pillsbury Client Alert discussing the ruling. In that Alert, Jim notes that the impact of the IRS ruling includes:

  • Wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by the employer on a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll taxes.
  • Payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable and self-employment tax rules generally apply. Normally, payers must issue IRS Form 1099.
  • The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer.
  • A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property.
  • For purposes of computing gross income, a taxpayer who receives virtual currency as payment for goods or services must include the fair market value of virtual currency received as measured in U.S. dollars, as of the date that the virtual currency was received.

The Client Alert provides additional detail, but if you are using bitcoins for any type of transaction, whether as contest prize, currency for purchases on your website, or payments to employees and vendors, the IRS has made clear that you will need to follow the same procedures (and pay taxes) as though the transaction had occurred in dollars.

While that is a big issue for businesses doing large Bitcoin transactions, businesses dabbling in small and occasional Bitcoin transactions will need to pay even closer attention than they would to a transaction using traditional currency. For example, if the prize in a station contest is one bitcoin, the station will need to assess whether awarding the prize triggers the need for issuing IRS Form 1099 to record the awarding of the prize. In a cash prize contest, that is straightforward, since the Form 1099 currently specifies a prize of $600 or more as the threshold for needing to issue the form. As I write this, however, the current Bitcoin exchange rate is roughly $582 U.S. dollars per bitcoin. That means a one bitcoin prize would not trigger the need for a Form 1099, but a two bitcoin prize would.

Similarly, yesterday’s IRS ruling seems to indicate that the bitcoin must be valued for tax purposes at the time it is received. As a result, the station holding the contest would need to check the value of a bitcoin on the day the prize is awarded to see if it is above or below the $600 threshold for tax purposes. Of course, given the volatility of the Bitcoin exchange rate, this raises other questions, such as how do you value the bitcoin for tax reporting if the exchange rate was below $600 for part of that day and above $600 for part of that day, or if the day the prize is “sent” is not the same day as the prize winner receives or “cashes” it.

Like so many things, Bitcoin appears to be another example of something meant to simplify life, but which is turning out to only make life more complicated. Look for life to get even more complicated as individual states formally adopt a similar approach in treating virtual currency transactions as taxable events.

Published on:

By

March 2014

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:

  • FCC Proposes $40,000 Fine for Public Inspection File/License Renewal Violations
  • Short-Term License Renewal and Hefty Fine for Missing QIP Lists
  • $5,000 Fine for FM Station’s Failure to Maintain Minimum Operating Hours


Failure to Disclose Rules Violations Leads to $40,000 Fine

Late last month, the FCC issued two essentially identical orders against co-owned Milwaukee and Chicago Class A TV stations in response to a number of missing Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists and Children’s Television Programming Reports and for not reporting the missing issues/programs lists in the stations’ license renewal applications. The FCC’s Media Bureau proposed a $20,000 fine against each station, for a total fine of $40,000.

In late December of last year, the FCC issued Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) for the two stations, noting that the stations had mentioned in their license renewal applications that they had failed to timely file numerous Children’s Television Programming Reports, but had not disclosed the absence from their online public files of over a dozen (each) Quarterly Issues/Program Lists. Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules requires licensees to maintain information about station operations in their public inspection files so the public can obtain “timely information about the station at regular intervals.”

The base fine for failure to file a required form is $3,000, and the base fine for public file violations is $10,000. After considering the facts, the FCC concluded in each NAL that the respective station was liable for $9,000 for the missing Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, $9,000 for the missing Children’s Television Programming Reports, and an additional $2,000 for failing to disclose the missing Quarterly Issues/Program Lists in their renewal applications.

After receiving the NALs, each station requested that the fine be reduced due to an inability to pay. The FCC will not consider reducing a fine based on a claimed inability to pay unless the licensee submits federal tax returns for the last three years, financial statements, or other documentation that accurately demonstrates its financial status. In this case, each station submitted appropriate documentation about its financial condition. However, the FCC was not persuaded that the amount of the fines exceeded each station’s ability to pay, and declined to reduce the fines.

Public Inspection File Violations Lead to $46,000 in Fines and Limited License Terms
In connection with recent license renewal applications, the FCC issued four essentially identical Memorandum Opinions and Orders and Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, resulting in $46,000 in fines for a Washington radio licensee. In addition, three of the licensee’s four stations’ license renewal applications were granted for only a four-year term rather than the normal eight-year term.

The first three of the licensee’s stations were missing, respectively, 24, 26, and 20 Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists for various periods during the license term. The fourth station’s public inspection file was missing 12 reports for a two-year period spanning from 2006 to 2008. Continue reading →