Articles Posted in FCC Enforcement

Published on:

By

As I wrote in April, the FCC decided after much delay to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a pair of lower court rulings seriously challenging the FCC’s prohibition on indecent programming that airs before 10pm. Today the Supreme Court announced that it has agreed to hear the matter, setting up what could be the most important broadcast content case in decades.

The lower court decisions being challenged by the FCC involve the unintentional airing of isolated expletives on Fox during live awards programs, and an episode of NYPD Blue on ABC that showed a woman’s buttocks (the FCC-approved term for that part of the anatomy). That the underlying facts of these cases are so different (an accidental expletive on live TV versus scripted nudity in a dramatic program) increases the likelihood of a relatively broad indecency decision by the Court, as opposed to a narrow finding that the FCC was or wasn’t justified in pursuing a particular case based on the facts of that case.

The Court could ultimately support the government’s general right to police indecency while finding fault with the FCC’s current interpretation of how that should be done. However, the elephant in the room is whether it still makes sense for the government to assert that broadcasters have lesser First Amendment rights than all other media. The implications of the Court finding that broadcasters, a major source of news and information for most Americans, have First Amendment rights equivalent to newspapers would create regulatory ripples far beyond indecency policy. For that reason, the Court will likely think long and hard before making such a sweeping pronouncement.

Still, it is increasingly true that most audiences in the U.S. have ceased to draw a distinction between, for example, broadcast channels and cable/satellite channels. As they flip through the growing number of programming channels on their flat screen TVs, or increasingly watch Internet content over those same TVs, the government’s case for regulating the content of a small number of those channels grows more tenuous. The Supreme Court will now tell us whether it has grown too tenuous to continue.

Published on:

By

By Glenn S. Richards and Christine A. Reilly

In a series of actions within the last five days, the FCC has focused its enforcement attention on cramming — the unauthorized placement of fees onto a consumer’s monthly phone bill by its own phone provider or an unaffiliated third party. These charges could be for telecommunications products and services but could also be for cosmetics or diet products. At an event in Washington, DC on June 20th, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the launch of a major new effort to educate consumers about cramming and plans for a proceeding that will empower consumers to better protect themselves from cramming. The FCC estimates that up to 20 million Americans may be victims of cramming each year.

In a series of Notices of Apparent Liability (NAL) released last week, the FCC issued fines between $1.5 and $4.2 million against four telephone service providers for cramming. These charges usually range from $1.99 to $19.99 per month and may go undetected for months. To reinforce its concerns about cramming, the FCC also released an Enforcement Advisory stating that “it has acted on four major investigations involving cramming” which it said is an “unjust and unreasonable” practice under Section 201(b) of the Communications Act. The Advisory also stated that the telecom providers “had apparently engaged in constructive fraudulent activity as part of a plan to place charges on consumers’ phone bills for services that the consumers neither requested nor authorized.”

According to a News Release issued last week, the four telecom providers, all headquartered in Pennsylvania, defrauded consumers by billing them for unauthorized dial-around services (a form of long distance service that allows a customer to use a different carrier than the one presubscribed to the telephone number). According to the News Release, 99.9% of the billing charges levied by the alleged violators were bogus. In one NAL, the FCC stated that one of the telecom providers billed “as many as 18,571 consumers monthly, during which time no more than 22 consumers (or 0.1 percent) ever actually used its service.”

According to the NALs, all four telecom providers employed identical Internet-only solicitation and online enrollment for services utilizing the same billing aggregator. The telecom providers practiced the same method of customer verification, which did not include sending “reply required” confirmation e-mails. When consumers later challenged the monthly charges, the telecom provider stated that as part of its customer verification process, it merely confirmed that the consumer’s name and/or address contained on the online enrollment form matched the telephone number provided on the online enrollment form, or confirmed that the IP address provided on the online enrollment form was within a 100 mile radius of the name, address and telephone number included in the online registration.
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:

  • FCC Fines FM Broadcaster for Excessive Power and RF Radiation Levels
  • Forfeiture More Than Triples After Consent Decree Default

Missing Fence Yields $10,000 Fine for Utah FM Broadcaster
During a routine inspection in April 2010, Denver field agents cited a Utah FM broadcaster for excess radio frequency radiation (“RFR”) exposure and failure to operate the station as authorized by the FCC. The citations resulted in a combined $14,000 fine.

According to the Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the station and its antenna tower were located at the top of a hill easily accessible by foot and all terrain vehicles. The station and tower were enclosed by a chain link fence, but access from the base of the hill to the station’s fence was unobstructed. The field agents visited the station on two separate occasions and determined that the station was exceeding permitted RFR exposure levels, with actual RFR ranging from 165 to 315% of the legally acceptable levels at distances between 12 and 28 feet outside the chain link fence. At the time of the inspection, Denver field agents did not observe any posted RFR warning signs on or near the site. Failure to maintain acceptable levels of public RFR exposure is a direct violation of Section 1.1310 of the FCC’s Rules, which mandates that broadcasters comply with the RFR exposure limits established by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements as outlined in the tables provided in the FCC’s Rules.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

During the last license renewal cycle, the FCC handed out an unprecedented number of fines to broadcasters who failed to file their license renewal applications on time. In some cases, a station only learned of its failure to file because the FCC sent it a letter notifying it that the FCC had deleted the station’s call sign from the official records and that the station’s operating authority had been terminated. For a broadcaster, that can ruin your whole day.

Such letters usually lead to an immediate call to the station’s counsel to try and fix the problem before the station’s business, goodwill, and call sign are lost permanently. The associated fines and legal costs to try to resuscitate the station’s license provide further incentive to avoid placing yourself in this situation. Because of this, it is no wonder that some broadcasters are anxious to get their license renewal applications on file well in advance of their filing deadline.

There is, however, such as thing as being too early. The FCC has already returned at least four license renewal applications because they were filed too early. Some were radio broadcasters whose stations are licensed to communities in DC, Maryland, Virginia or West Virginia. They are required to file their applications by June 1st, and are the first to use the new version of the renewal form, which the FCC announced it would begin accepting on May 2. At least one of these stations has already refiled its application, this time waiting for the May 2nd official opening of renewal season.

These stations are not alone, however, with numerous other broadcasters also having filed prematurely. Among these early filers are low power television stations whose renewal applications are not due for a year or more from now. Because many FCC compliance obligations are connected to a station’s license renewal cycle, a station that is off on its renewal filing date by such a margin that its application is filed in the wrong year likely has numerous other FCC issues that need to be examined and addressed.

Compounding the danger is the FCC database’s admonition that it does not generate an automatic dismissal letter notifying the applicant that its renewal application has been dismissed. As a result, these early filers may believe they have discharged their license renewal filing obligations only to later find out that their authority to operate has been terminated.

The window within which a station can file a compliant license renewal application is actually quite small. For most stations in the full power services, as well as LPFM stations, the FCC’s rules require that four pre-filing announcements be aired on specific dates and in specific time periods alerting the public that the station will be filing a license renewal application. Once the application is filed, six more announcements must air noting that the application has been filed, again on a prescribed time schedule. Because the last of the pre-filing announcements must air on the 16th (with the license renewal application due on the 1st of the following month), stations that file before that date will be airing an inaccurate public notice. In addition, the EEO portion of the license renewal application, which is submitted separately using FCC Form 396, requires that all but the smallest stations attach their two most recent annual EEO Public Inspection File reports to the filing. However, the FCC’s EEO rule requires that each annual report cover a time period ending no earlier than 10 days before the anniversary of that station’s license renewal filing deadline. A station can’t comply with that requirement if it files its renewal materials before that 10 day period commences.

Therefore, while May 2nd, 2011 has now passed and renewal season has officially begun, stations filing more than a week or two before their license renewal application deadline are likely creating a potential problem for themselves. This goes double for the 396 EEO form. So far in 2011, more than 70 of these forms have been filed at the FCC by stations whose licenses are nowhere near ready for a license renewal review. To avoid this, stations need to familiarize themselves with the license renewal filing and notice dates applicable to them, and not simply mimic what stations in other states or services are doing.

To give that effort a little boost, you can look at our latest post regarding license renewals, which addresses the upcoming license renewal compliance deadlines (beginning June 1) for radio stations in North Carolina and South Carolina. If you are not a radio station licensee in North or South Carolina, don’t worry, your time is coming. When it does, make sure you are ready early; just not too early.

Published on:

By

A Notice of Apparent Liability released today by the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau provides 25,000 reasons that you don’t want to bounce a check when making a payment at the FCC. As I noted in a post this time last year, there has been a conspicuous effort by the FCC to increase the size of fines for various rule violations. Equally apparent has been an effort by the FCC in recent years to rely more heavily on “consent decrees” rather than fines to resolve allegations of rule violations.

In a typical case, the FCC will commence an investigation of alleged rule violations, and rather than completing the investigation and (where appropriate) issuing a fine, the FCC and the licensee will negotiate a consent decree to resolve the matter. For the FCC, the benefit of resolving an investigation through a consent decree is that it conserves agency resources that would otherwise have to be expended to complete the investigation, issue sanctions, and defend those sanctions if the licensee appeals them. For the licensee, a consent decree can be attractive as well, cutting short a potentially embarrassing investigation and eliminating the risk of being socked with a far larger fine.

An FCC consent decree generally has two components: a “voluntary” financial contribution to the federal government, and the implementation of a multi-year compliance program, complete with reports to the FCC to ensure that the alleged rule violations do not recur. While there is no shortage of people who argue that consent decree negotiations can quickly devolve into a “shakedown,” the consent decree process can sometimes be an efficient means of resolving what would otherwise be a resource-draining process for both the FCC and the licensee.

If you enter into a consent decree, however, be prepared to live up to it. In an enforcement action released today, a consent decree ended badly for the licensee of an AM station in Puerto Rico. The licensee entered into a consent decree in May 2008 to resolve allegations of rule violations involving tower fencing, the station’s public inspection file, and operating with an unauthorized antenna pattern. The consent decree required the licensee to make an $8,000 contribution to the U.S. Treasury, and to file a compliance report in May 2010 certifying compliance with all of the other terms of the consent decree. The licensee entered into the consent decree after the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability indicating that it was prepared to issue a $15,000 fine for the alleged violations.

According to the Enforcement Bureau, the licensee attempted to make the $8,000 contribution with a check that bounced for “insufficient funds.” When the licensee also failed to file its compliance report, the FCC lost patience, resulting in the issuance today of a new Notice of Apparent Liability against the station licensee for $25,000.

Perhaps the licensee thought that once the consent decree is signed, the FCC has too much else on its hands to bother following up to ensure that the licensee lives up to its consent decree promises. If so, the licensee misjudged the FCC. It may take some time for the long arm of the FCC to catch up with you, but as happened in this case, it eventually does.

Published on:

By

Earlier today, the FCC wrapped up a seminar on complying with its new ex parte rules, which govern the public disclosures that must be made following a meeting with FCC personnel. The new rules are designed to increase the transparency of the FCC’s decision-making process, and go into effect in a few short weeks (June 1, 2011). Unfortunately, the price of increased transparency is more paperwork and the risk of being assessed fines by the Enforcement Bureau, which has been granted authority to police the new rules and issue fines to those who run afoul of them.

Fortunately, the FCC’s General Counsel, Austin Schlick, indicated at the seminar that while the Enforcement Bureau now has the authority to levy fines for ex parte violations, the FCC will not use its new ex parte rules as an administrative “speed trap” to generate revenue from fines. While his statement is not binding on the FCC, it does provide some comfort to those unfamiliar with the process and requirements for conducting meetings with the FCC that inadvertent errors won’t necessarily be costly ones.

A complete copy of the order establishing the new rules can be found here, but some of the more noteworthy changes include:

  1. Under the new rules, all ex parte notice letters must be filed electronically with the FCC in machine-readable format (e.g., DOC, PPT or searchable-PDF files). There are a number of exceptions to this rule, including for hardship and documents containing confidential information.
  2. All presentations will require ex parte filings, even those in which parties merely reiterate arguments or data already in the record. Such ex parte filings must provide details regarding the facts that were discussed, the arguments made, and the support offered for those arguments during the presentation. Alternatively, parties may provide detailed citations to prior filings containing that information.
  3. Because of these added complexities, the filing deadline for submitting an ex parte notice will now be two full business days after the presentation (rather than one). However, during the “Sunshine Period” prior to an FCC vote, the notice must be filed on the same business day in which the presentation is made.

On a related note, the FCC this week published in the Federal Register a request for comments establishing the comment deadlines for those wishing to provide input on when and how real parties-in-interest must be disclosed in ex parte filings. A copy of the request for comments can be found here.

In particular, the FCC is interested in whether disclosure requirements should apply to other types of filings in addition to ex parte notices, whether disclosures should be made in only some or all types of FCC proceedings, whether different disclosure requirements should be applicable to different types of entities (such as trade associations or non-profit groups), and whether a party should be deemed to have made adequate disclosure if its filing references information appearing on the Internet or available from the FCC’s databases. Comments are due by June 16, 2011 and Reply Comments are due by July 18, 2011.

By
Posted in: FCC Administration
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Broadcasters don’t know it yet, but recent actions by the Department of Justice suggest that the federal government may be moving closer to raining on their upcoming license renewals. The reason? Medical marijuana advertising. While it seems like a recent phenomenon, the first state laws permitting medical marijuana go back some 15 years. The movement by states to permit the use of medical marijuana has grown steadily since then, with half the states in the U.S. (and the District of Columbia) now having medical marijuana laws on the books or under consideration.

Of course, when an entrepreneur sets up a medical marijuana dispensary, the next step is to get the word out to the public. In the past few years, these dispensaries began approaching broadcast stations in growing numbers seeking to air advertising. In the depths of the recent recession, medical marijuana dispensaries were one of the few growth industries, and many stations were thrilled to have a new source of ad revenue.

However, marijuana, medical or otherwise, is still illegal under federal law. When we first began receiving calls a few years ago from broadcast stations asking if they could accept the ads, the federal government’s position was ambiguous. Many stations, and in some cases, their counsel, concluded that as long as the activity was legal in the state in which the station was located, airing medical marijuana ads was fine. In 2009, the Department of Justice gave some comfort, if not support, to this school of thought when it internally circulated a memo to some U.S. attorneys suggesting that the DOJ was not interested in pursuing medical marijuana businesses as long as they operated in compliance with state law.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Headlines:

  • FCC Begins to Move on Pending Video News Release Complaints
  • Failure to Monitor Tower Lighting Results in $12,000 Penalty

Video News Releases Garner $4,000 Fines for Two Television Broadcasters
After a flurry of complaints from advocacy groups a few years ago raised the issue at the FCC, the Commission has been pondering how to treat Video News Releases (VNRs) with respect to its sponsorship identification rule. The result has been a growing backlog of enforcement investigations involving VNRs. However, the release of two decisions proposing fines for stations that aired all or part of a VNR without identifying the material on-air as being sponsored appears to indicate that the dam is about to break. In its first VNR enforcement actions in years, the FCC fined two unrelated television stations $4,000 each for violating the sponsorship identification requirements found in Section 317 of the Communications Act and Section 73.1212 of the FCC’s Rules.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Caught between a rock and the Second Circuit, the FCC hesitantly took the defense of its indecency policy to the Supreme Court today. The FCC filed a petition seeking the Court’s review of the Second Circuit’s decisions in indecency cases involving Fox and ABC programs. Last year, the Second Circuit found the FCC’s interpretation of indecency to be arbitrary and capricious. On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed, and lobbed this perennial hot potato back over the net to the Second Circuit for an assessment of the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency policy.

Whether intentional or not, the Supreme Court’s return of the matter to the Second Circuit was the legal equivalent of a high lob, and the Second Circuit enthusiastically slammed the ball back across the net, ruling that the FCC’s current indecency policy is unconstitutionally vague. In light of its earlier ruling, the Second Circuit’s conclusion was hardly a surprise. More curious, however, was the government’s reaction to it. Rather than again storming to the Supreme Court to defend its indecency policy, the FCC first asked the Second Circuit to reconsider its decision (a request that was denied in November 2010), and then sought not one, but two extensions of the deadline for requesting Supreme Court review.

The FCC waited until the end of even that extended period before seeking joint review of the Fox and ABC decisions (the deadline for the Fox decision was today, while the FCC actually had until May 4th to seek review of the ABC decision). In asking that the cases be considered together, the FCC is making the calculation that “scripted nudity” in ABC’s NYPD Blue presents a more compelling case for government regulation than the Fox case, where the agency concluded that fleeting expletives (during the Billboard Music Awards) were a form of actionable indecency despite years of precedent to the contrary. That new interpretation, which the FCC first announced with regard to an NBC broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards, gave everyone (including FCC staff) a case of regulatory whiplash, whereas the FCC’s ongoing, if erratic, feud with broadcast nudity was hardly a surprise (and therefore less controversial).

The government’s hesitance to bring all of this to the Supreme Court’s doorstep a second time is even more curious after reading the petition, which bluntly states that “The court of appeals has effectively suspended the Commission’s ability to fulfill its statutory indecency enforcement responsibilities unless and until the agency can adopt a new policy that surmounts the court of appeals’ vagueness rulings.” The petition then suggests that no functional indecency policy could overcome that hurdle. It is therefore apparent that the FCC’s delay in bringing the challenge (which to be fair, necessarily involves getting the Department of Justice on board) is not the result of any belief that the agency might have been able to “live with” or “work around” the Second Circuit’s ruling by revising its policy. There is clearly something else at work here.

From a legal perspective, the FCC’s petition is well written. However, in reading through it, you can’t avoid the impression that even the FCC is trying to convince itself that the technological and cultural shifts of the last decade or two have not rendered the notion of government second-guessing broadcast content an anachronism. In particular, it is hard to escape the irony of the FCC seeking to bring high speed Internet into every home by reallocating broadcast spectrum based on the argument that only 10% of Americans are viewing over-the-air television. If true, then the government is expending a lot of effort to control what that 10% sees on their televisions, while racing to use those airwaves to bring these same households the wonders of the Internet–including all of that content that they aren’t allowed to see on their TV’s.

The convergence of distribution technologies is upon us, and whether that claimed 10% of households uses their TV’s V-Chip, or an Internet software filter on their computer, to prevent unwelcome content from entering their home, the result is hardly different. The FCC’s sudden shyness in defending its indecency policy suggests that it is concerned that the Supreme Court may note that incongruity as well.

Published on:

By

I wrote last week about the FCC’s announcement that broadcasters must certify in their license renewal applications that their advertising contracts have, since March 14, 2011, had a nondiscrimination clause in them. Specifically, broadcasters must certify that their “advertising sales agreements do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity and that all such agreements held by the licensee contain nondiscrimination clauses.” The good news from last week’s announcement was that the FCC chose to apply the advertising nondiscrimination certification (which was originally announced in 2008), prospectively, rather than announcing that stations would have to certify their contracts included such language since 2008 or 2009.

That was the good news, and what government giveth with one hand, it can taketh away with the other. Today the FCC released an FCC Enforcement Advisory and News Release emphasizing how seriously it intends to treat that certification. The FCC’s Advisory states that broadcasters unable to make that certification will need to “attach an exhibit identifying the persons and matters involved and explaining why the noncompliance is not an impediment to a grant of the station’s license renewal application.”

The Advisory goes on to state that “Licensees must have a good faith basis for an affirmative certification” and notes that “a licensee that uses a third party to arrange advertising sales is responsible for exercising due diligence to ensure that the advertising agreement contains the nondiscrimination clause and does not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.”

Lawyers are perhaps unique in their ability to acknowledge the validity of a legal requirement while still questioning the logic of it. Make no mistake–this new certification is the law and broadcasters need to make sure that they can truthfully make this certification at license renewal time. The goal itself is admirable. Indeed, as Univision’s Washington counsel during the time that it grew from only seven TV stations to 162 TV and radio stations, I saw first hand the challenges of persuading advertisers (and others) that Spanish-language viewers and listeners are an important group of consumers worthy of advertisers’ dollars.

However, as I noted in last week’s post, trying to use the FCC’s authority over broadcasters as a method to modify the conduct of advertisers (who are generally beyond the FCC’s authority) is a futile approach. Advertisers aren’t too worried about a broadcaster’s license renewal. As a result, the only one to be hurt here is the broadcaster, not the discriminatory advertiser.

The FCC can counter that preventing broadcasters from accepting ads of discriminatory advertisers ensures such advertisers will cease their discriminatory ad practices if they want air time. This assertion suffers, however, from two debilitating flaws. First, if the current FCC’s view is accurate that broadband,and not broadcasting, is the way of the future, then there will be plenty of non-broadcast venues for advertisers wishing to engage in discriminatory ad buys. Indeed, the FCC’s certification will not even prevent the same advertiser from making discriminatory ad buys in non-broadcast media while avoiding such discrimination on the broadcast side.

That brings us, however, to the bigger flaw in this approach, and that is the simple fact that clauses in a contract can generally only be enforced by the parties to that contract. As a result, a broadcaster can place the required nondiscrimination clause in its contract, and if the advertiser proceeds to purchase ads in a discriminatory manner (e.g., splitting its ad buying money among all of the broadcaster’s local radio stations except the one with the Spanish-language format), the FCC can’t really do anything about it. The only party in a position to enforce the nondiscrimination clause in the contract is the broadcaster, who will understandably be hesitant to spend precious resources suing an advertiser. There is no financial incentive to spend money on litigation, and there is obviously a huge disincentive for the broadcaster to sue a revenue source that can readily take its advertising dollars elsewhere (and who won’t care what happens to the broadcaster’s license renewal application).

Even today’s FCC Enforcement Advisory seems to overlook this, asserting that “a broadcaster that learns of a violation of a nondiscrimination clause while its license renewal application is pending should update its license renewal application so that it continues to be accurate.” However, whether an advertiser has proceeded to engage in discriminatory ad buying practices in violation of the contractual nondiscrimination clause would not necessarily affect the accuracy of the broadcaster’s certification that its “advertising sales agreements do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity and that all such agreements held by the licensee contain nondiscrimination clauses.” The broadcaster could certainly volunteer to the FCC that it had discovered an advertiser discriminating, but the FCC has no authority to punish the advertiser, and punishing the broadcaster who uncovered the advertiser’s discriminatory efforts doesn’t make much sense. As a result, the new certification adds to the regulatory thicket surrounding broadcasters, but leaves discriminatory advertisers free to roam.