Articles Posted in Programming Regulations

Published on:

By

One thing about being part of a heavily regulated industry—you know well in advance most of the regulatory obligations and deadlines you’ll be facing in the year ahead.  While that brings no solace to broadcasters, it does lend a certain level of predictability to an often unpredictable industry.

For more decades than most of us can remember, Pillsbury’s Communications Practice has published its annual Broadcasters’ Calendar detailing filing deadlines facing broadcasters in the coming year.  As the Calendar itself warns, however, these obligations can expand or contract (though expansion has unfortunately been the historical norm), and deadlines can appear, disappear, and move with great rapidity.

Broadcasters have therefore long known that you start the year with the Broadcasters’ Calendar close at hand, while keeping an eye on CommLawCenter and the industry trades to see what obligations and deadlines will be added, subtracted, or altered over the course of the year.

Thus it has been, and thus shall it always be.

Some years are more likely than others to bring surprises, however.  With Trump 2.0 arriving upon the scene and new leadership coming to the FCC in January, the winds of change are likely to blow particularly hard in 2025.  Broadcasters are hoping those winds will be at their backs, bringing long overdue deregulation before social media giants drive broadcasters over the same ledge that the remaining newspapers cling to by their fingertips.

While broadcasters are admittedly nervous regarding soon-to-be Chairman Carr’s comments about reinvigorating the public interest standard for broadcasters given that the phrase has lost all meaning under recent Commissions, his clarification that his focus rests primarily upon the national networks rather than local broadcasters has brought a limited degree of relief.  Still, broadcasters will need to keep a close eye on regulatory developments in 2025, which promises to be a very eventful year.

So keep the 2025 Broadcasters’ Calendar close at hand in the coming year, and hope that the 2026 edition will be appreciably thinner.

Published on:

By and

Following the devastation wrought by Hurricane Helene across the American southeast and in anticipation of Hurricane Milton’s arrival, the FCC has announced an extension of the deadline to upload Third Quarter Issues/Programs Lists for radio and television stations in states particularly affected by Hurricane Helene (note that the Public Notice mistakenly refers to them as “first quarter” Lists) .  As discussed in our Third Quarter Issues/Programs List advisory, the Lists are due for most stations by October 10, 2024.  However, in light of the Commission’s announcement today, broadcast stations in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee now have until November 10, 2024 to upload these lists (the Public Notice actually says the October 10, 2020 deadline is extended to November 10, 2020, but the FCC’s intent is clear).

Because of Hurricane Helene, the FCC previously extended the deadline for broadcast stations nationwide (as well as all other EAS Participants) to file their Form One  in the EAS Test Reporting System.  The Form One, previously due on October 4, 2024, is now due on October 18, 2024.

In granting the latest extension only to stations in hurricane-impacted states, the FCC still encouraged those stations “to file their quarterly issues/programs lists as soon as practicable.”  The FCC also made clear that the extension “does not modify any requirements or filing deadlines related to stations’ political files, nor does it modify any other filing obligations or deadline related to broadcasters’ public files.”

Lastly, some practical advice—stations taking advantage of the Third Quarter Issues/Programs List extension should note in their upload file that they are filing after the normal deadline pursuant to an extension granted by the FCC.  When a station’s license comes up for renewal several years from now, and the licensee must certify that the Public File has been complete at all times, station employees may have forgotten why this particular filing appears to have been uploaded late.  It will be important for the station to have a contemporaneous note in the Public File explaining that the filing was not late, both to remind the licensee making its license renewal certification and to alert third parties and any FCC staff later reviewing the Public File that the List was in fact timely uploaded.

Published on:

By , and

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

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

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

The proposal would require broadcasters to do the following:

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

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

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

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

Published on:

By , and

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

  • FCC Proposes $8,000 Fine for Contest Rule Violations
  • Business Communications Company Settles Business Radio Investigation by Agreeing to Compliance Plan and $100,000 Penalty
  • FCC Issues $16,500 Fine to Alabama FM Translator for Multiple Rule Violations

California FM Station Receives $8,000 Proposed Fine for Contest Rule Violation

The FCC proposed a fine of $8,000 against the licensee of a California FM radio station for violating the FCC’s Contest Rule.  Specifically, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) asserting that the licensee failed to conduct the contest substantially as announced.

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

The FCC received a complaint alleging that the station did not award a cash prize to the winner of a contest conducted in October 2019.  To investigate the complaint, the FCC issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to the station.  In response, the station admitted that there had been “undue delay,” with the prize being awarded after the announced timeline.  The station’s contest rules indicated prizes were to be awarded to winners “within thirty (30) business days of the date the winner completes all required Station documents.”  The station acknowledged that it received all required documentation on January 16, 2020, and thus it should have issued the prize by March 2, 2020, but did not issue the prize until May 2021.  The station cited three separate events as the cause of the undue delay: (1) difficulty accessing necessary files after the COVID-19 pandemic led to employees working from home; (2) a ransomware attack that affected corporate IT systems between October 2020 and March 2021; and (3) a lack of staff after the ransomware attack that prevented the station from completing work in a timely manner.

Despite these defenses, the FCC found that the station apparently willfully violated Section 73.1216 of the FCC’s Rules when it failed to award the prize in accordance with the advertised contest rules, and therefore failed to conduct the contest “fairly and substantially as represented to the public.”  The FCC explained that “timely fulfillment of the prize” was a “material term of the Licensee’s own contest rules” and the station delayed issuing the prize for over a year.  The FCC disagreed with the station’s justifications for the delay, finding that they did not excuse the failure to award the prize in compliance with the announced contest rules.  In particular, the FCC pointed out that the station’s first justification for the delay (the pandemic transition to work-from-home) occurred in mid-March 2020 – after the station should have already issued the prize by March 2, 2020.

The FCC’s base fine for violations pertaining to licensee-conducted contests is $4,000.  In this case, the FCC found a single violation of Section 73.1216 of the FCC’s Rules resulting from the station’s failure to issue the prize within the timeframe established by the contest rules.  However, considering the totality of the circumstances, and in line with the FCC’s Forfeiture Policy Statement, the FCC determined an upward adjustment was warranted, emphasizing that “large or highly profitable companies should expect to pay higher forfeitures for violations of the Act and the Commission’s rules” to ensure that the fine is an “effective deterrent and not simply a cost of doing business.”  The FCC therefore concluded that an upward adjustment of the proposed fine from $4,000 to $8,000 was appropriate.  The station has 30 days from release of the NAL to pay the fine or file a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of it.

Rule Violations by Business Communications Company Result in Consent Decree with Compliance Plan and Six-Figure Penalty

A nationwide business communications company settled an FCC investigation by admitting that it failed to seek approval from the FCC before transferring control of business radio licenses and that it conducted business radio operations without authorization.  The company entered into a consent decree that requires implementation of a compliance plan and payment of a $100,000 civil penalty. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published on:

By and

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

Overview

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

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

Commercial Television Stations

Commercial Limitations

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

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

Core Programming Requirements

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

Published on:

By and

Bookending the Christmas weekend, the FCC’s long-awaited 2018 Quadrennial Review Report and Order was adopted on Friday, December 22 and released Tuesday, December 26.  The Commission is required by Congress to conduct a regulatory review of its broadcast ownership rules every four years and was directed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to conclude this particular review no later than December 27 (or to show cause why that couldn’t be done).

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:

  • Foreign Ownership Violation by Telecommunications Provider Leads to $50,000 Penalty and Four-Year Compliance Plan
  • Arizona LPFM Station Hit with $20,000 Penalty and $41,500 Suspended Penalty for Underwriting Violations
  • Unauthorized Station Transfers Result in $8,000 Consent Decree

Telecommunications Provider to Pay $50,000 and Implement Four-Year Compliance Plan After Foreign Ownership Violations

A Guam-based telecommunications provider (Telecom Provider) settled an investigation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) into its ownership structure by entering into a consent decree that requires a $50,000 payment to the government and implementation of a 48-month compliance plan.  The Telecom Provider holds domestic and international Section 214 authorizations, 84 wireless licenses, three submarine cable licenses, and an earth station satellite license.  The FCC’s investigation concerned the Telecom Provider’s ownership, which includes two foreign corporations and a foreign government’s finance ministry.

Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), places a 25 percent limit on ownership by foreign individuals, corporations, and governments in U.S.-organized entities controlling common carrier licensees.  Under the Act, the FCC may permit higher levels of foreign ownership of an FCC licensee if it determines it is not contrary to the public interest.  Since 2013, FCC approval has also been required for any foreign individual or entity not previously approved by the FCC to acquire more than a five percent equity or voting interest in the entity.  These public interest determinations by the FCC incorporate input from a federal Executive Branch review of national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns conducted by a multi-agency group known as Team Telecom.

In 2015, the FCC granted an application that allowed the Telecom Provider to have 100 percent foreign ownership consisting of a parent entity two steps up in the ownership chain (Indirect Parent Entity) (owning up to 65.15 percent of the equity and voting interests) and the finance ministry (owning up to 26.95 percent of the equity interests and 41.53 percent of the voting interests).  Five years later, the Indirect Parent Entity commenced a tender offer for outstanding shares in the parent entity directly above the telecom provider (Direct Parent Entity).  Two months later, the Indirect Parent Entity acquired the tendered shares, which increased its indirect ownership interests in the Telecom Provider to 91.46 percent.  At the end of 2020, the Indirect Parent Entity also acquired all shares of the Direct Parent Entity’s common stock held by the remaining minority shareholders, resulting in it owning 100 percent of the equity and voting interests of the Telecom Provider.  These transactions led to the finance ministry having an indirect ownership interest in the Telecom Provider (held through Indirect Parent Entity) of 33.93 percent equity and voting.  The result was higher levels of foreign ownership in the Telecom Provider than had previously been approved by the FCC.

The Telecom Provider attempted to correct the problem by filing a Petition for Declaratory Ruling seeking approval for the Indirect Parent Entity and finance ministry to exceed their previously approved foreign ownership limits.  In late 2021, the International Bureau granted the Petition, but the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau pursued the prior foreign ownership violation, resulting in a Consent Decree with the Telecom Provider.

In addition to paying a $50,000 civil penalty for exceeding the foreign ownership levels approved by the FCC, the Telecom Provider must implement a plan to ensure compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree, including developing a compliance manual, administering employee compliance training, and submitting compliance reports to the Commission for four years regarding foreign ownership compliance.  During that time, the Telecom Provider must also report instances of noncompliance with the FCC’s foreign ownership rules and the terms of the Consent Decree within 15 days of discovering them.

Violations of Noncommercial Broadcast Underwriting Laws Result in $20,000 Penalty and a $41,500 Suspended Penalty for Low Power FM Station

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of an Arizona LPFM station to resolve an investigation into violations of the FCC’s rules regarding underwriting.  Under the Consent Decree, the licensee agreed to implement a compliance plan and pay a $20,000 civil penalty, with a suspended civil penalty of $41,500 to be levied in the event of default. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

This past Friday, the FCC released a Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Multicast Licensing Order), setting forth rules regarding Next Gen multicast hosting arrangements and seeking further comment on ATSC 3.0-related patent issues.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

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

  • LPFM Station Fined $15,000 for Airing Commercial Advertisements
  • FCC Issues Notices to the Landowners of Sixteen Pirate Radio Sites
  • Telecommunications Carrier Pays $227,200 To Resolve 911 Outage Investigation

Continue reading →