Articles Posted in Internet & Online

Published on:

By

As I have noted on several occasions in the past, the FCC requires that certain video programming delivered online by television stations be captioned if that programming previously aired on television with captions (for a quick refresher you can view my posts “FCC Seeks Greater Clarity on IP Video Captioning Rules”, “Second Online Captioning Deadline Arrives March 30”, and “First Online Video Closed Captioning Deadline Is Here”).

All video programming that appeared on television with captions after April 30, 2012, is considered “covered Internet Protocol (IP) video” and is required to be captioned when shown online. In January of 2012, the FCC released an Order exempting “video clips” and outtakes while requiring that television stations display captioning for prerecorded full-length programming delivered via IP if the programming had aired on television with captions. Where a captioned TV program is streamed on the Internet in segments, it must be captioned if substantial portions of the entire program are shown via those segments.

However, in the latest turn, the FCC is now asking for updated information regarding whether it should remove the “video clip” exemption. It is seeking public comment on the issue, with comments due on January 27, 2014, and reply comments due on February 26, 2014. The FCC’s Public Notice asks commenters to answer a number of questions regarding the current state of captioning of IP-delivered video clips, including:

  • What portion of IP-delivered video clips generally, and of IP-delivered news clips specifically, are captioned?
  • Has the availability of captioned versions of such clips been increasing?
  • What is the quality of the captioning on IP-delivered video clips?
  • Should the FCC require captioning of IP-delivered video clips?
  • How are the positions of commenters consistent with the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), its legislative history, and the intent of Congress to provide video programming access to people with disabilities?
  • What are the potential costs and benefits of requiring captioning of IP-delivered video clips?
  • How have consumers been affected by the absence of closed captioning on IP-delivered video clips, particularly news clips?
  • To the extent that some entities have already captioned these clips, what technical challenges, if any, had to be addressed?
    How does the captioning of IP-delivered video clips differ from the captioning of full-length IP-delivered video programming?
  • What are the differences between captioning live or near-live IP-delivered video clips, such as news clips, and prerecorded IP-delivered video clips?
  • If the FCC imposes closed captioning obligations on IP-delivered video clips, should the requirements apply to all video clips, or only to a subset of such clips?
  • If only to a subset, what subsets would be most appropriate and what would be the rationale for excluding others?

The FCC also asks for comment on any additional issues relevant to its determination of whether closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips should be required.

TV stations have been making greater use of their websites over the last few years to deliver video programming, and that use is only likely to increase in the years ahead as TV stations expand their use of mobile applications to reach viewers. As a result, the FCC’s new proceeding raises important issues that will affect stations’ video streaming, online marketing, and bottom line. As the saying goes, you’re not entitled to complain about an elected official if you didn’t bother to vote, and broadcasters need to speak up now if they want to avoid having to complain later about any complex or burdensome online captioning requirements that might be adopted in this proceeding.

By
Posted in: Closed Captioning
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The FCC has released a Report and Order which includes its final determinations as to how much each FCC licensee will have to pay in Annual Regulatory Fees for fiscal year 2013 (FY 2013), and in some cases how the FCC will calculate Annual Regulatory Fees beginning in FY 2014. The FCC collects Annual Regulatory Fees to offset the cost of its non-application processing functions, such as conducting rulemaking proceedings.

The FCC adopted many of its proposals without material changes. Some of the more notably proposals include:

  • Eliminating the fee disparity between UHF and VHF television stations beginning in FY 2014, which is not a particularly surprising development given the FCC’s recently renewed interest in eliminating the UHF discount for purposes of calculating compliance with the FCC’s ownership limits;
  • Imposing on Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) providers the same regulatory fees as cable providers beginning in FY 2014. In adopting this proposal, the Commission specifically noted that it was not stating that IPTV providers are cable television providers, which is an issue pending before the Commission in another proceeding;
  • Using more current (FY 2012) Full Time Employees (FTE) data instead of FY 1998 FTE data to assess the costs of providing regulatory services, which resulted in some significant shifts in the allocation of regulatory fees among the FCC’s Bureaus. In particular, the portion of regulatory fees allocated to the Wireline Competition Bureau decreased 6.89% and that of all other Bureaus increased, with the Media Bureau’s portion of the regulatory fees increasing 3.49%; and
  • Imposing a maximum annual regulatory rate increase of 7.5% for each type of license, which is essentially the rate increase for all commercial UHF and VHF television stations and all radio stations. A chart reflecting the FY 2013 fees for the various types of licenses affecting broadcast stations is provided here.

The Commission deferred decisions on the following proposals in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that launched this proceeding: 1) combining the Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) and wireless telecommunications services into one regulatory fee category; 2) using revenues to calculate regulatory fees; and 3) whether to consider Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers as a new multi-channel video programming distributor (MVPD) category.

The Annual Regulatory Fees will be due in “middle of September” according to the FCC. The FCC will soon release a Public Notice announcing the precise payment window for submitting the fees. As has been the case for the past few years, the FCC no longer mails a hard copy of regulatory fee assessments to broadcast stations. Instead, stations must make an online filing using the FCC’s Fee Filer system, reporting the types and fee amounts they are obligated to pay. After submitting that information, stations may pay their fees electronically or by separately submitting payment to the FCC’s Lockbox. However, beginning October 1, 2013, i.e. FY 2014, the FCC will no longer accept paper and check filings for payment of Annual Regulatory Fees.

By
Posted in: Cable/Satellite TV
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Last month, the FCC released an Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that clarified a number of aspects of the FCC’s complex closed captioning requirements for video programming delivered using Internet Protocol (IP) and the devices used by consumers to view it. In the FCC’s words, the Order and Further Notice was issued to “affirm, modify, and clarify certain decisions” made by the Commission last year implementing closed captioning requirements for video programming distributed via IP.

The original IP captioning rules were adopted in January 2012 in response to the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA). The Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice has now been published in the Federal Register, and the rules adopted in the Order are set to take effect on August 1, 2013. For those who would like a refresher on the CVAA and the IP requirements, you can find my previous posts on the subject here and here.

In the Further Notice adopted simultaneously with the Order, the Commission asked for comment on imposing “closed captioning synchronization requirements for covered apparatus, and on how DVD and Blu-ray players can fulfill the closed captioning requirements of the statute.” Based on the publication of the Further Notice in the Federal Register, comments on the Further Notice are now due on September 3, 2013, and reply comments are due September 30, 2013.

The bulk of the Order is largely a response to three Petitions for Reconsideration filed in connection with last year’s Report and Order, which adopted rules governing the closed captioning requirements for owners, providers, and distributors of IP-delivered video programming, as well as the closed captioning capabilities of devices used by consumers to view video programming. The Petitions were filed by the Consumer Electronics Association, TV Guardian, and a coalition of consumer groups, respectively.

Highlights of the FCC’s Order and Further Notice include:

  • Refusing to limit covered devices to those intentionally designed to play back video programming, but clarifying the rule and issuing two class-based waivers in response to requests by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) to exclude equipment such as digital cameras and baby monitors;
  • Clarifying that the January 1, 2014, deadline for devices to be equipped to display closed captioned video programming applies to the date of manufacture of the apparatus, and “not to the date of importation, shipment, or sale”;
  • Reaffirming its decision to allow video programming providers and distributors to select either the rendering or pass through of captions to end users; and
  • Delaying a final decision regarding whether video clips (i.e., “excerpts of full length programming”) should be included within the scope of covered programming until more information is collected as part of another public notice that the FCC plans to issue within the next six months.

The CEA had requested that the FCC narrow the applicability of the closed captioning equipment requirements to cover only those devices intended by the manufacturer to receive, play back, or record IP video programming, rather than broadly applying the rules to any device with a video player.

In response, the FCC revised its definition of “apparatus” to make clear that “video players” requiring captioning capability include only those that display “video programming transmitted with sound.” The FCC declined to limit the requirement to only those devices intentionally designed to play back video programming, but clarified its rule and issued two class-based waivers excluding from the requirement equipment such as still digital cameras and baby monitors, which play back consumer generated images and not IP “video programming” as defined by the CVAA.

The following two classes of “apparatus” qualify for the waiver:

(i) devices that are primarily designed to capture and display still and/or moving images consisting of consumer-generated media, or of other images that are not video programming as defined under the CVAA and our rules, and that have limited capability to display video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound … and (ii) devices that are primarily designed to display still images and that have limited capability to display video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound.

The FCC also decided to delay the January 1, 2014 compliance deadline for DVD players that do not render or pass through closed captions. According to the Commission, that extension was granted to give the FCC more time to collect data regarding additional costs that might be imposed by adding IP captioning functionality to low-cost devices like DVD and Blu-ray players. The extension does not apply to other removable media players or to DVD players that already have the ability to caption.

Regarding the TV Guardian Petition, the FCC denied the Petition, which had requested that the Commission prohibit video programming providers and distributors from rendering captions where passing through captions is “technically feasible”, determining that the request was inconsistent with the language of the CVAA. The FCC also noted that the consumer electronics industry “coalesced around the use of HDMI, which permits the use of rendered captions but does not pass through closed captions, meaning that it only conveys captions when they have been decoded and mixed into the video stream.”

The FCC deferred a decision on the main thrust of the third Petition, filed by a number of consumer groups, which questioned why IP video captioning requirements only apply to “full-length programming” that appears on TV with captions and is then distributed via IP to end users substantially in its entirety. The coalition of consumer groups urged the FCC to expand the captioning requirement to also cover “video clips” containing less than a full-length program. The FCC is keeping the record open on this issue until more information is gathered on the captioning of video clips, including the difficulty of doing so, and the degree to which such captioning already occurs voluntarily.

Finally, in the Further Notice, the FCC asked for “further information necessary to determine whether the Commission should impose synchronization requirements on device manufacturers.” What the FCC is asking for here is additional information to determine whether to “require apparatus manufacturers to ensure that their apparatus synchronize the appearance of closed captions with the display of the corresponding video.” In the Report and Order, the FCC had declined to impose synchronization requirements on manufacturers, instead placing the obligation on video programming distributors and providers.

As noted, initial comments on the Further Notice are due September 3, 2013, with reply comments due on September 30, 2013. The issues raised in the proceeding are obviously complex, so those who wish to file comments should start preparing sooner rather than later.

By
Posted in: Closed Captioning
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

As we have discussed at great length in the past, the FCC’s rules require that certain video programming delivered online be captioned if the programming previously aired on television with captions. The rules kicked in on April 30 of last year, and all video programming that appeared on television with captions after that date is considered “covered Internet Protocol (IP) video” and will ultimately need to be captioned when being shown online.

The first step of the captioning phase-in occurred on September 30, 2012. Since that date, stations have been required to display captioning for prerecorded full-length programming delivered via IP if the programming was first aired on television with captions on or after the April 30 date noted above.

The second phase of the FCC’s IP captioning rules begins March 30, 2013 (a Saturday), at which time the FCC’s IP captioning rules require all live and near-live programming subject to the rules and shown on television with captions to be captioned when delivered online. The FCC’s definition of “live” or “near-live” captures all programming performed simultaneously or recorded within 24 hours of its first transmission to a video programming distributor. Note that as long as they do not constitute “substantially all” of a full-length program, online video clips are currently exempt from the IP captioning rules.

As a result, the question we probably receive most often from clients about online captioning is: what exactly does the FCC mean by “substantially all” of a full-length program? It’s a good question that lacks a precise answer. The FCC intentionally decided not to provide a specific threshold for the length or number of clips aired that would constitute “substantially all” of a program. According to the FCC, it did not see “any evidence that Congress sought to exclude only clips of a certain duration or percentage of the full-length program.”

Parties should keep in mind, however, that the FCC will not allow them to game the system by simply “shaving” off a few minutes or brief segments of a full length program in order to avoid the IP captioning obligation. The FCC emphasized that “if there is clear evidence that an entity has developed a pattern of attempting to use video clips to evade its captioning obligations,” the FCC may find that a rule violation has occurred.

There is of course more to come. The captioning requirements for “full length” and “live or near-live” programming are just the beginning of the new IP captioning obligations being implemented in the near future. The next deadline is coming up soon with the September 30, 2013 requirement that all pre-recorded programming that is edited for Internet distribution be captioned for online viewing. Also, don’t forget there are separate captioning compliance deadlines for captioning of IP video programming that previously aired on television prior to the effective date of the rules, but that is shown again on television with captions after the effective date. Those phased-in captioning requirements are scheduled to take place between March 2014 and March 2016, with progressively shorter periods to caption the programming for IP video after it airs on television with captions.

As was the case with the original broadcast captioning rules, each phase-in “deadline” shrinks the amount of programming exempt from the online captioning requirement while requiring the distributor to tackle ever more complex captioning issues. IP captioning will therefore consume a growing portion of the attention of those posting broadcast video online. The big difference is that broadcast captioning was phased in over eight years (twelve years for Spanish language programming), whereas online captioning is being phased in on a much faster schedule.

By
Posted in: Closed Captioning
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By and

Resolving a conundrum faced by every business that has entered the world of consumer texting, the FCC has ruled that businesses are not violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by sending a confirmation text to consumers who have just opted out of receiving further texts. However, the FCC did impose limitations on the content of such confirmation texts to ensure compliance with the TCPA. The threshold requirement is that the purpose of the reply text be solely to confirm to the consumer that the opt-out request has been received and will be acted on. The FCC then enumerated several additional requirements that businesses must observe when sending confirmation texts to avoid violating the TCPA. For those affected, which is pretty much every business that uses texts to communicate with the public, we have released a Client Alert on the subject.

To many, sending a confirmation text to a consumer who has previously opted in to receiving a company’s text messages would appear to be nothing more than good customer service and an extension of the common practice of sending a confirmatory email message when a consumer has chosen to unsubscribe from an email list. Indeed, many wireless carriers and mobile marketing and retail trade associations have adopted codes of conduct for mobile marketers that include sending confirmation texts to consumers opting out of future text messages.

However, the TCPA, among other things, makes it illegal to make a non-emergency “call” to a mobile telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system or recorded voice without the prior express consent of the recipient. The FCC’s rules and a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit define a “call” as including text messages. As a result, many businesses have had class action lawsuits filed against them by consumers arguing that, once they send a text message opting out of receiving future texts, their prior consent has been revoked, and the business violates the TCPA by sending ANY further texts, even in reply to the consumer’s opt-out text.

Seeking to avoid facing such lawsuits and the potential for conflicting decisions from different courts, businesses sought the FCC’s intervention. After reviewing the issue, the FCC rejected the fundamental argument raised by the class action suits, noting that the FCC has never received a single complaint from a consumer about receiving a confirmatory text message. The FCC did note, however, that it had received complaints from consumers about not receiving a confirmation of their opt-out request. The Commission therefore held that when consumers consent to receiving text messages from a business, that consent includes their consent to receiving a text message confirming any later decision to opt out of receiving further text messages.

To avoid creating a loophole in the TCPA that might be exploited by a business, the FCC proceeded to set limits on confirmation texts designed to ensure that they are not really marketing messages disguised as confirmation texts. First and foremost, the implied permission to send a confirmation text message only applies where the consumer has consented to receiving the company’s text messages in the first place. Next, the confirmation text message must be sent within five minutes of receiving the consumer’s opt-out request, or the company will have to prove that a longer period of time to respond was reasonable in the circumstances. Finally, the text of the message must be truly confirmatory of the opt-out and not contain additional marketing or an effort to dissuade the consumer from opting out of future texts. You can read more about the FCC’s decision and these specific requirements in the firm’s Client Alert.

By providing clarity on the relationship between confirmation texts and the TCPA, the FCC’s ruling provides marketers and other businesses with some welcome protection from class action TCPA suits. In an accompanying statement, Commissioner Ajit Pai stated that “Hopefully, by making clear that the Act does not prohibit confirmation texts, we will end the litigation that has punished some companies for doing the right thing, as well as the threat of litigation that has deterred others from adopting a sound marketing practice.” Businesses just need to make sure they comply with the FCC’s stated requirements for confirmation texts to avail themselves of these protections.

Published on:

By

The privacy practices of mobile applications (“Apps”) have been under scrutiny from a wide variety of domestic and foreign regulatory authorities of late. Most recently, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued a press release regarding a new enforcement effort aimed at bringing mobile Apps into compliance with California’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA” or “Act”).

CalOPPA applies to any online service that collects personally identifiable information through the Internet about a California resident who uses or visits the online service. In other words — the Act appears to apply to the entire world wide web. And now that includes any mobile App that uses the Internet to collect personally identifiable information.
On October 30, 2012, the California Attorney General sent a series of letters to mobile App operators reminding them that CalOPPA requires that they conspicuously post a privacy policy that complies with specified requirements. She stressed that the privacy policy must be “reasonably accessible … for consumers of the online service.”

The Attorney General did not dictate how Apps could comply with the posting requirement. However, she did state that having a website with the applicable privacy policy conspicuously posted may be adequate, but only if a link to that website is “reasonably accessible” to the user within the App. She also warned that, under California’s unfair competition law, violations of CalOPPA may result in penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation. In the context of a mobile App, each copy of the unlawful App downloaded by California consumers would constitute a separate violation.

The California Attorney General’s action is another step towards requiring mobile Apps to provide consumers with the same sorts of privacy protections as they have come to expect when surfing the Web at home or work. What industry and regulators continue to struggle with is doing so in the unique environment of mobile devices.
Click here for a copy of California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris’ press release and a sample non-compliance letter.

Published on:

By , and

With the unprecedented popularity of social media, employees have increasingly used LinkedIn and other online forums to network for business and social purposes. When the line between personal and business use is blurred, litigation may ensue. A federal court recently ruled that an employer did not violate federal computer hacking laws by accessing and altering its recently departed CEO’s LinkedIn account, but that the former CEO could proceed to trial on her state law misappropriation claim. In addition, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts recently joined Maryland in enacting laws prohibiting the practice of requesting access to prospective employees’ password-protected social media accounts.

In Eagle v. Morgan, et al., Linda Eagle, former CEO of Edcomm, Inc. (“Edcomm”), filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania alleging that Edcomm hijacked her LinkedIn social media account after she was terminated. While Eagle was CEO of Edcomm, she established a LinkedIn account that she used to promote Edcomm’s banking education services, to foster her reputation as a businesswoman, to reconnect with family, friends and colleagues, and to build social and professional relationships. Edcomm employees assisted Eagle in maintaining her LinkedIn account and had access to her password. Edcomm encouraged all employees to participate in LinkedIn and contended that when an employee left the company, Edcomm would effectively “own” the LinkedIn account and could “mine” the information and incoming traffic.

After Eagle was terminated, Edcomm, using Eagle’s LinkedIn password, accessed her account and changed the password so that Eagle could no longer access the account, and then changed the account profile to display Eagle’s successor’s name and photograph, although Eagle’s honors and awards, recommendations, and connections were not deleted. Eagle contended that Edcomm’s actions violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and numerous state and common laws. In an October 4, 2012 ruling on the company’s summary judgment motion, U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter dismissed Eagle’s CFAA and Lanham Act claims against Edcomm but held that Eagle had the right to a trial on whether Edcomm had violated state misappropriation law and other state laws.

The Eagle case is just one example of how the absence of a clear and carefully drafted social media policy can lead to protracted and expensive litigation. This area of law appears to be garnering increasing attention on the legislative front as well as the judicial front, as three more states recently enacted laws prohibiting employers from requiring, or in some cases even requesting, access to prospective employees’ social media accounts. The attached chart includes more detail about the California, Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland laws and the provisions of similar legislation pending in the various states and in the U.S. Congress.

A common theme connects the Eagle case with the recent password access legislation: the importance of defining the lines of ownership and demarcating the boundary between the professional and the personal. If Edcomm, for example, had established a LinkedIn account for its CEO’s use and had asserted its property interest in the account at the outset of the employment relationship, Edcomm’s CEO would have had no reasonable expectation of ownership in it. Under that scenario, Edcomm likely would not be facing trial on a misappropriation claim. Similarly, the social media password legislation definitively declares that employers and prospective employers have no right to access the social media accounts that applicants and employees have established for their personal use.

In addition, as explained in our recent Client Alert on enforcement actions under the National Labor Relations Act in connection with employer discipline of employees for social media postings, employer responses to employee use of social media can also result in government agency action against employers. These developments all point to the same message: employers wishing to avoid legal risk should be proactive in implementing well-defined policies and procedures relating to the LinkedIn, Pinterest, Twitter, Facebook and other social networking and media accounts of prospective, current and former employees, including clearly identifying rights to those accounts when the employee leaves the company.

A PDF version of this article can be found here, which includes a chart summarizing State and Federal Social Media Bills.

To read prior Client Alerts related to this subject, click on the links below:

Client Alert, First NLRB Decisions on Social Media Give Employers Cause to Update Policies, Practices

Client Alert, Employ Me, Don’t Friend Me: Privacy in the Age of Facebook

Published on:

By

The first compliance deadline for the FCC’s new rules for the closed captioning of video programming delivered via Internet protocol (i.e., IP video), as required by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), is September 30, 2012. April 30, 2012 was the effective date of the new rules and all video programming that appeared on television with captions after that date is considered “covered IP video” and will need to be captioned when being shown online in the future. “Video programming” is defined as “programming by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by a television broadcast station.”

Last January, the FCC released its Order adopting rules to implement the CVAA’s requirements governing the closed captioning of IP video. The CVAA requires that all nonexempt full-length video programming delivered over the Internet that first appeared on TV in the United States with captions also be captioned online. According to the rules, video programming shown on the Internet after being shown on television must have captions based on the following timeline established by the FCC:

  • September 30, 2012: all pre-recorded programming not edited for Internet distribution must be captioned for online viewing. Pre-recorded programming is defined as programming other than live or near-live programming.
  • March 30, 2013: all live and near-live programming must be captioned for online viewing. Live programming is defined as programming that airs on TV “substantially simultaneously” with its performance (i.e., news and sporting events). Near-live programming is video programming that is performed and recorded less than 24 hours prior to the first time it aired on television (i.e., the “Late Show with David Letterman”).
  • September 30, 2013: all pre-recorded programming that is edited for Internet distribution must be captioned for online viewing. Programming edited for Internet distribution means video programming for which the TV version is “substantially edited” prior to its Internet distribution.

Keep in mind that there is a different compliance schedule for all programming that is subject to the new requirements but which is already archived in a video programming distributor’s or provider’s library before it is shown on television with captions. Such programming is subject to the following deadlines:

  • Beginning March 30, 2014, all programming that is subject to the new requirements and is already in the distributor’s or provider’s library before it is shown on television with captions must be captioned within 45 days after it is shown on television with captions.
  • Beginning March 30, 2015, such programming must be captioned within 30 days after it is shown on television with captions.
  • Beginning March 30, 2016, such programming must be captioned within 15 days after it is shown on television with captions.

Clients frequently ask whether the new rules apply to clips, video-clips, or outtakes. Generally, the answer is no. The FCC’s Order defines clips as “excerpts of full-length programming.” According to the FCC, the rules apply to “full-length video programming” defined as “video programming that appears on television and is distributed to end users, substantially in its entirety, via IP.” This definition therefore excludes video clips or outtakes from video programming that appeared on television. However, keep in mind that the FCC also indicated that when “substantially all” of a full-length program is available via IP, whether as a single unit or in multiple segments, that program is not considered a clip and does constitute a full-length program subject to the IP captioning rules.

Those interested in learning more about these issues should contact us.

By
Posted in: Closed Captioning
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

There has been a recent uptick in class action lawsuits against video programming distributors under the Video Privacy Protection Act. The VPPA was enacted in 1988 in response to the disclosure of the video tape rental records of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork during his confirmation hearings. Reflecting the era of its passage, the law refers to information regarding “video cassette tapes”, but is much broader, requiring those who are involved in renting, selling or distributing “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials” to discard consumer information after a period of time (generally one year) and to get consumers’ consent before disclosing information about an individual’s viewing habits.

In this day and age of apps that share the songs individuals listen to and the newspaper articles they read, the VPPA has been cited as a major impediment to similar online sharing regarding video downloads and rentals. Congress has considered legislation that would amend the VPPA to permit social media sharing of an individual’s video viewing without requiring that individual’s consent on a title by title basis. While it may seem an anachronism to those accustomed to rampant social sharing, the VPPA’s requirements, and those of similar state privacy laws, apply to far more than just local video rental stores.

The attached Client Alert discusses a recent California case in which an individual brought a class action lawsuit against Sony. The suit claimed that Sony had retained the history of customers’ PlayStation Network movie and video game purchases and rentals, and that it disclosed such information to the new owner of the PlayStation Network when the network was transferred, and that the new owner then disclosed that information to advertisers.

As a review of the Client Alert reveals, any video on demand provider, whether cable, satellite, or online, needs to be knowledgeable of the requirements of the VPPA. The VPPA provides an avenue for individuals to bring class actions on behalf of thousands of affected customers, and to seek actual, liquidated, and/or punitive damages for the violation, as well as legal fees. Because of this, the financial stakes can be quite high for what might be an entirely unintentional violation of consumers’ privacy.

Published on:

By

Late last month I wrote about a strange occurrence at a number of TV stations that were visited by FCC inspectors demanding that the station make a copy of its entire public inspection file in 24-48 hours and provide that copy to the FCC.

I commented at the time that this highly unusual event was more likely connected to the FCC’s pending proceeding to move the public inspection file online than to any enforcement action, noting that “while this would seem bizarre any place outside of Washington (well, it’s bizarre here too, but you get used to that after a while), the FCC has been on the receiving end of numerous comments and declarations from broadcasters noting how large the public inspection file has become, and how burdensome and time-consuming it would be to require stations to scan the entire contents of it for the sake of posting it online.” It therefore seemed likely that the FCC was not so much interested in the substance of each station’s public file as in determining the sheer size of those files. Regardless, stations with the misfortune of being on the receiving end of these requests had to absorb the overtime and copying costs involved to comply.

Since that time, the FCC has scheduled a vote at its April 27 meeting to require that the public file, including the political file portion of it, be posted online. The timing of the planned vote is not a good sign for broadcasters, as it is a long-standing FCC tradition to schedule votes on orders that are favorable to broadcasters so that they can be released just before the NAB Show, ensuring that FCC commissioners speaking at the NAB Show will receive a warm reception. Conversely, FCC orders that broadcasters are not going to be happy about tend to be delayed until after the NAB Show concludes. With the FCC’s scheduled vote coming the week after the NAB Show, it should surprise no one that the FCC appears ready to adopt an order requiring that public files (including the political file) be moved online.

On the good news side, the FCC appears to be dropping its proposals to require that certain inter-station agreements and sponsorship identification lists be added to the file, either because broadcasters’ complaints about those proposals were heard, or because the FCC saw them as unnecessary judicial baggage in an order that it would like to see implemented quickly.

Returning, however, to the mystery of why the FCC was demanding copies of stations’ public files, the last document placed in the FCC’s record in the online public file proceeding this past Friday (just before the holiday weekend) is illuminating. It is a one-page “Submission for the Record” from the Media Bureau noting that “[t]he Commission requested a copy of the public file from all broadcast stations in the Baltimore DMA in March of 2012, received the documents either on paper or electronically, and subsequently reviewed each file, counting the total number of pages in the following categories….” The Submission then notes the total number of pages in each file (with the award for the largest file going to WJZ-TV, at 8,222 pages), and breaks out the number of pages in the categories of Political File, letters/emails from the public, documents currently available online at the FCC, and documents the FCC found extraneous to the file. This certainly appears to confirm that the FCC’s goal in demanding that stations rapidly provide a copy of their entire public file was merely to determine the quantity, and not the quality, of those files. By placing that information in the public record, the FCC can now rely on it in its decision to implement an online public file requirement (although how it supports that result is still unclear).

While one can question the burden placed on individual stations merely to determine the number of pages in a public inspection file (which is information that is already in the record, having been submitted in numerous broadcasters’ comments), once that information has been gathered, it is fair for the FCC to make use of it by placing it in the record. What is curious, however, is the effort the FCC appears to have expended to do so as quietly as possible. In addition to it being dropped into the record right before the holiday weekend, the Submission itself is an unusual document. It is not on letterhead, it is not dated, and it is not signed. If it were not for the fact that the FCC’s filing system indicates it was submitted by the Media Bureau, you might well wonder where it came from. There may, however, be a reason for this.

When the FCC moved its public comment system online, the FCC and communications lawyers quickly found that the number of one-page submissions from the public stating a position but providing no supporting rationale exploded exponentially. The result was that it became difficult to locate the more substantive comments filed in a proceeding, as they were lost among hundreds or thousands of short “me too” submissions. To the FCC’s eternal credit, it modified its comment search filter so that you can exclude “Brief Comments” from your search, allowing you to focus on the more substantial comments filed. Parties actively following a proceeding therefore tend to use this option and exclude “Brief Comments” when checking the record.

By eliminating all extraneous information, the FCC was able to keep its Submission down to one page in length, and as it turns out, the system’s definition of a Brief Comment is one that is one page long, meaning that those using the search filter will not see it. That may well be nothing more than a coincidence, but it would at least explain the unusually brief and cryptic nature of the FCC’s Submission. But if that is the case, we have just traded one mystery for another–having gone to such lengths to gather this information, why is the FCC being so shy about having found it?