Articles Posted in Telecommunications

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:

  • Inadequate Sponsorship ID Ends with $44,000 Fine
  • Unattended Main Studio Fine Warrants Upward Adjustment
  • $16,000 Consent Decree Seems Like a Deal

Licensee Fined $44,000 for Failure to Properly Disclose Sponsorship ID
For years, the FCC has been tough on licensees that are paid to air content but do not acknowledge such sponsorship, and an Illinois licensee was painfully reminded that failing to identify sponsors of broadcast content has a high cost. In a recent Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the FCC fined the licensee $44,000 for violating its rule requiring licensees to provide sponsorship information when they broadcast content in return for money or other “valuable consideration.”

Section 317 of the Communications Act and Section 73.1212 of the FCC’s Rules require all broadcast stations to disclose at the time the content is aired whether any broadcast content is made in exchange for valuable consideration or the promise of valuable consideration. Specifically, the disclosure must include (1) an announcement that part or all of the content has been sponsored or paid for, and (2) information regarding the person or organization that sponsored or paid for the content.

In 2009, the FCC received a complaint alleging a program was aired without adequate disclosures. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the program did not disclose that it was an advertisement rather than a news story. Two years after the complaint, the FCC issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the licensee. In its response to the LOI, the licensee maintained that its programming satisfied the FCC’s requirements and explained that all of the airings of the content at issue contained sponsorship identification information, with the exception of eleven 90-second spots. In these eleven spots, the name of the sponsoring organization was identified, but the segment did not explicitly state that the content was paid for by that organization.

Though the licensee defended its program content and the disclosure of the sponsor’s name as sufficient to meet the FCC’s requirements, the FCC was clearly not persuaded. The FCC expressed particular concern over preventing viewer deception, especially when the content of the programming is not readily distinguishable from other non-sponsored news programming, as was the case here.

The base forfeiture for sponsorship identification violations is $4,000. The FCC fined the licensee $44,000, which represents $4,000 for each of the eleven segments that aired without adequate disclosure of sponsorship information.

Absence of Main Studio Staffing Lands AM Broadcaster a $10,000 Penalty
In another recently released NAL, the FCC reminds broadcasters that a station’s main studio must be attended by at least one of its two mandatory full-time employees during regular business hours as required by Section 73.1125 of the FCC’s Rules. Section 73.1125 states that broadcast stations must maintain a main studio within or near their community of license. The FCC’s policies require that the main studio must maintain at least two full-time employees (one management level and the other staff level). The FCC has repeatedly indicated in other NALs that the management level employee, although not “chained to their desk”, must report to the main studio on a daily basis. The FCC defines normal business hours as any eight hour period between 8am and 6pm. The base forfeiture for violations of Section 73.1125 is $7,000.

According to the NAL, agents from the Detroit Field Office (“DFO”) attempted to inspect the main studio of an Ohio AM broadcaster at 2:20pm on March 30, 2010. Upon arrival, the agents determined that the main studio building was unattended and the doors were locked. Prior to leaving the main studio, an individual arrived at the location, explained that the agents must call another individual, later identified as the licensee’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), in order to gain access to the studio, and provided the CEO’s contact number. The agents attempted to call the CEO without success prior to leaving the main studio.

Approximately two months later, the DFO issued an LOI. In the AM broadcaster’s LOI response, the CEO indicated that the “station personnel did not have specific days and times that they work, but rather are ‘scheduled as needed.'” Additionally, the LOI response indicated that the DFO agents could have entered the station on their initial visit if they had “push[ed] the entry buzzer.”

In August 2010, the DFO agents made a second visit to the AM station’s main studio. Again the agents found the main studio unattended and the doors locked. The agents looked for, but did not find, the “entry buzzer” described in the LOI response.

The NAL stated that the AM broadcaster’s “deliberate disregard” for the FCC’s rules, as evidenced by its continued noncompliance after the DFO’s warning, warranted an upward adjustment of $3,000, resulting in a total fine of $10,000. The FCC also mandated that the licensee submit a statement to the FCC within 30 days certifying that its main studio has been made rule-compliant.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

While the FCC gets to have a say in nearly every sale or merger in the communications industry, no matter how small, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission will also be called upon if a transaction is large enough. The test for when a transaction is large enough to require a filing with the DOJ or the FTC is whether it exceeds the minimum financial thresholds of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) Act.

Because of inflation and other factors, however, the HSR thresholds must be annually adjusted to accurately separate small deals from big deals. This separation is critical because the DOJ and the FTC have limited resources to investigate transactions, and therefore only require advance notification of transactions that involve companies or transactions above a certain minimum size. Transactions that fall below the HSR reporting thresholds, however, are not immune from antitrust scrutiny even after they are consummated if they are likely to have an anticompetitive effect in any relevant market.

On February 27, 2012, the HSR thresholds will increase significantly, with the “minimum size-of-transaction test” threshold increasing from $50 million to $68.2 million. If the value of the proposed transaction is above $68.2 million but below $272.8 million (up from $200 million), reporting is required only if the ultimate parents of the acquiring and acquired entities meet certain “size-of-person” tests, the thresholds for which will also increase on February 27, 2012. Subject to a myriad of exemptions, transactions valued at over $272.8 million under the HSR regulations must generally be reported. If that sounds complicated (and it can be), Pillsbury’s Antitrust lawyers recently published an Advisory with more details on these changes.
While transactions that meet these thresholds must be reported whether or not they are communications-related, the thresholds can be particularly relevant to large broadcasters, since broadcasters that enter into a transaction requiring an HSR filing need to be aware that they may not be able to implement a local marketing agreement or similar cooperative arrangement in conjunction with an anticipated acquisition until the HSR filing has been made and the mandatory post-filing waiting period has either passed without action by the DOJ/FTC, or the DOJ/FTC have agreed to terminate the HSR waiting period early.

With communications transactions starting to heat up again, the increase in the HSR thresholds is welcome, and may simplify transactions that fall above the current HSR thresholds, but below the new ones.

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:

  • Failure to Refresh Tower Paint Garners $8,000 Fine
  • FCC Levies $25,000 Fine for Failure to Respond
  • $85,000 Consent Decree Terminates Investigation Into Unauthorized Transfers of Control

Tower Owners Receive Harsh Reminder Regarding Lighting and Painting Compliance
The FCC, citing air traffic navigation safety, has fined many tower owners for noncompliance with Part 17 of the Commission’s Rules. Part 17 includes regulations pertaining to the registration, maintenance and notification obligations of tower owners. The base fine for violating Part 17 requirements is $10,000.

Part 17 supplements the notification obligations imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). Section 17.7 of the FCC’s Rules requires that certain tower structures, including most structures over 200 feet in height and those near airports or heliports, be registered with the FCC. Section 17.21 mandates that most towers over 200 feet be lit and painted in accordance with the FAA’s recommendations. These recommendations include the use of orange and white paint (alternating bands) and red or white flashing, strobe or static lights.

With the recent release of two Notices of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the FCC continued its pursuit of those who fail to comply with its tower rules, including Section 17.50, which mandates that any tower required to be painted in accordance with the FAA’s guidelines or the FCC’s Rules must be cleaned or repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility.

In the first of the two NALs, agents from the Dallas Field Office inspected a 402-foot tower located in Quanah, Texas and determined that the existing paint, which was faded, scraped, peeling or missing in certain areas, was insufficient. The NAL indicates that the agents were unable to distinguish between the orange and white bands from a “quarter mile from the [tower]”, thereby “reducing the structure’s visibility.”

Shortly after the Quanah inspection, agents from the Dallas Field Office also inspected a 419-foot tower located in Durant, Oklahoma. The agents found a similar situation, where the tower’s paint was faded, scraped, peeling or missing in certain areas. The agents were again unable to distinguish between the orange and white bands from “800 feet away from the [tower]”, once again “reducing the structure’s visibility.”

The FCC levied the full base fine of $10,000 against each tower owner. The FCC also mandated that no later than 30 days after the release of the respective NAL, a “written statement pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Rules signed under penalty of perjury by an officer or director of [the tower owner] stating that the [tower] has been painted to maintain good visibility” be delivered to the Dallas Field Office.

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:

  • Failure to Monitor and Repair EAS Equipment Nets $8,000 Fine
  • Fines for Late-Filed License Renewals Continue
  • $25,000 Fine for Failure to Answer FCC Correspondence

Act of Vandalism Ends With $8,000 Fine

In a recently released Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the FCC issued a fine totaling $8,000 against a New Mexico AM broadcaster for violating the FCC’s Emergency Alert System (“EAS”) rules. The NAL alleges that the broadcaster failed to properly maintain its EAS equipment, a violation of Section 11.35 of the FCC’s Rules.

During a June 2011 main studio inspection, an agent from the Enforcement Bureau’s San Diego Field Office observed that the station’s EAS equipment was not operational. According to the NAL, the Station’s EAS equipment had been damaged by vandalism six months prior to the inspection. In addition to the equipment failure, Station employees were unable to provide the required EAS documentation (i.e., logs or other EAS records) associated with the mandatory weekly and monthly tests required by Section 11.61 of the FCC’s Rules.

Inoperable EAS equipment is a violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Commission’s Rules, which mandates that broadcasters must ensure that the required EAS equipment is installed, maintained and monitored. Section 11.35(a) also requires EAS participants to log, among other things, instances when the station experiences technical issues during participation in the weekly or monthly EAS tests. Pursuant to Section 11.35(b), EAS participants must seek FCC approval if their EAS equipment will not be functioning for more than 60 days. The base fine for an EAS violation is $8,000. The FCC, stating that “EAS is critical to public safety,” levied the full fine against the broadcaster.

Late Filings and Unauthorized Operations Lead to $10,000 Forfeiture

The FCC recently issued a joint Memorandum Opinion and Order and NAL to the licensee of an AM station in South Carolina for several violations of the FCC’s Rules. The licensee was ultimately fined $10,000 for failing to file its license renewal application on time and for unauthorized operation of the station following the license’s expiration.

Section 73.3539(a) of the FCC’s Rules requires license renewal applications to be filed four months prior to the expiration date of the license. The AM station’s license was set to expire in December 2003, but no license renewal application was filed. The station licensee later explained that it did not file a renewal application because it did not realize the license had expired. In May of 2011, seven years later, the FCC notified the station that the station’s license had expired, its authority to operate had been terminated, and that its call letters had been deleted from the FCC’s database.

After receiving this letter, the station filed a late license renewal application and a subsequent request for Special Temporary Authority (“STA”) to operate the station until the license renewal application was granted. Because so much time had passed since the station failed to timely file its 2003 license renewal application, the deadline for the station’s 2011 license renewal application (for the 2011-2019 license term) also passed without the station filing a timely license renewal application. As a result, the FCC found the station liable for an additional violation of its license renewal filing obligations. The base fine for failing to file required forms is $3,000. Thus, the FCC found the station liable for a total of $6,000 relating to these two violations.

Further, the FCC found the licensee liable for violations of Section 301 of the Communications Act because the station continued operating for seven years after its license had expired. The base forfeiture for such a violation is $10,000, but the FCC lowered the proposed forfeiture to $4,000 because the station had previously been licensed.

In spite of the rule violations and $10,000 fine, the FCC decided to grant the station’s license renewal application, finding that the station’s violations did not evidence a “pattern of abuse.”
FCC Fines Unresponsive Party $21,000 Above Base Fine

A recent NAL released by the Enforcement Bureau provides a reminder that regulatory ignorance is not bliss. According to the NAL, the Enforcement Bureau, as part of an investigation into billing practices, issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to a provider of prepaid calling cards on July 15, 2011. The LOI mandated that a response be submitted by August 4, 2011.

The provider failed to respond to the LOI by the initial deadline. The Enforcement Bureau, via e-mail on August 29, 2011, provided an additional extension of time to respond until September 8, 2011. The extended deadline again came and went without action by the provider. As of December 9, 2011, the Enforcement Bureau had not received a response to its July 2011 LOI. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the FCC’s Rules, the base fine for failure to respond to FCC correspondence is $4,000.

The NAL noted that the FCC’s authority under Sections 4(i), 218, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934 “empowers it to compel carriers … to provide the information and documents sought by the Enforcement Bureau’s LOI,” and that failure to respond to an Enforcement Bureau request “constitutes a violation of a Commission order.” The Enforcement Bureau stated that the provider’s “egregious, intentional and continuous” misconduct warranted a $21,000 upward adjustment to the base $4,000 fine, for a total fine of $25,000.

A PDF version of this article can be found at FCC Enforcement Monitor.

Published on:

By

The Commission’s Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 Initiates a Two-Year Deadline for Providers of Advanced Communications Services and Manufacturers of Equipment Used in Advanced Communications Services to Comply with Disabilities Access Requirements.

The Federal Communications Commission (the “Commission”) recently adopted a Report and Order (“R&O”) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) implementing Section 104 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (the “CVAA”), codified as Sections 716, 717 and 718 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”). The purpose of the CVAA is to “ensure that people with disabilities have access to the incredible and innovative communications technologies of the 21st century.”

Prior to the passage of the CVAA, and pursuant to Section 255 of the Act, the Commission imposed disabilities access requirements on manufacturers of telecommunications equipment (including answering machines, pagers and telephones) and providers of telecommunications services. In 2007, the Section 255 requirements were extended to providers of interconnected VoIP services and manufacturers of VoIP equipment. The CVAA expands the Commission’s regulatory authority to historically unregulated providers of advanced communications services (“ACS”) and manufacturers of equipment used for ACS (collectively the “Covered Entities”) and codifies the requirement as it applies to interconnected VoIP.

ACS includes interconnected VoIP, noninterconnected VoIP, electronic messaging service and interoperable video conferencing services, which are defined as:

  • Interconnected VoIP: a service that (1) enables real-time, two-way voice communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the user’s location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (“CPE”); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network (“PSTN”) and to terminate calls to the PSTN.
  • Noninterconnected VoIP: a service that (i) enables real-time voice communications that originate from or terminate to the user’s location using Internet protocol or any successor protocol; and (ii) requires Internet protocol compatible customer premises equipment” and “does not include any service that is an interconnected VoIP service.
  • Electronic Messaging Service: “means a service that provides real-time or nearreal-time non-voice messages in text form between individuals over communications networks. This service does not include interactions that include only one individual (human to machine or machine to human communications).
  • Interoperable Video Conferencing Services: services that provide real-time video communications, including audio, between two or more users. This service does not include video mail. The Commission has sought additional comment, pursuant to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, regarding the definition and application of “interoperable”.

The Commission clarified that the regulations implemented pursuant to the CVAA “do not apply to any telecommunications and interconnected VoIP products and services offered as of October 7, 2010.” The R&O also indicates that any regulated equipment or service offered after October 7, 2010 may be governed by both Sections 255 and 716.

The CVAA established, among other things, a phased compliance timeline due to the financial and technical burdens associated with developing and implementing technological changes required by the CVAA. Covered Entities must comply with Sections 716 and 717 within one year of the effective date. Section 718 compliance must be achieved within two years of the effective date or no later than October 8, 2013. The CVAA also includes long-term reporting obligations, enforcement procedures, limitations on liability for violations and finite compliance deadlines. The Commission decided that the rules, as implemented, would not include any safe harbors or technical standards at this time. Finally, the Commission determined that when implementing the CVAA, its rules should include opportunities for waivers and self-executing exemptions.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

8/15/2011

The FCC has announced that full payment of all applicable Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2011 must be received no later than September 14, 2011.

As of this date, the FCC has not released a Public Notice officially announcing the deadline for payment of FY 2011 annual regulatory fees. However, the FCC’s website indicates that the 2011 annual regulatory fees must be paid no later than 11:59 pm (EST) on September 14, 2011.

As reported in July 2010, beginning in 2011, the Commission has discontinued mailing assessment notices to licensees/permittees. It is the responsibility of each licensee/permittee to determine what fees are due and to pay them in full by the deadline. Information pertaining to the annual regulatory fees is available online at https://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html.

Annual regulatory fees are owed for most FCC authorizations held as of October 1, 2010 by any licensee or permittee which is not otherwise exempt from the payment of such fees. Licensees and permittees may review assessed fees using the FCC’s Media Look-Up website – http://www.fccfees.com. Certain entities are exempt from payment of regulatory fees, including, for example, governmental and non-profit entities. Section 1.1162 of the FCC’s Rules provides guidance on annual regulatory fee exemptions. Broadcast licensees that believe they qualify for an exemption may refer to the FCC’s Media Look-Up website for instructions on submitting a Fee-Exempt Status Claim.

Continue reading →

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

While we await release of the text of today’s Net Neutrality order from the FCC, it strikes me as useful to take a step back and apply a broader perspective to what can be learned from the debate that led to it. While lawyers get a rush when they think they have come up with the perfect legal argument to support their client’s cause (and we’re fun at parties too!), those of us working in Washington have to concede that legal arguments are often secondary to the politics involved. Certainly, the FCC’s order will not be the last word in the Net Neutrality debate, with a number of prominent members of Congress already promising a legislative rebuke, and the near certainty of the courts being called upon to assess the FCC’s authority to adopt such rules.

In spite of the millions spent on lawyers and lobbyists on both sides of this issue, the result was in many ways preordained by the real champion in this debate, linguistics. Much of the battle was won when proponents summarized their position as being in favor of “Net Neutrality”, a term that is sufficiently innocuous yet catchy enough to crystallize the debate as being between those who want a neutral/fair apportionment of the Internet’s capabilities, and those who, well, don’t. Opponents were put instantly on the defensive, trying to explain why a neutral Internet wouldn’t be a good thing.

While other terms were also bandied about in the early days of the debate (like “broadband discrimination” or “traffic prioritization”), none had the simple positive ring (and alliteration) of Net Neutrality. “Internet Indifference” might have been a good candidate as well, but no one seems to have thought of it at the time.

Added to this linguistic head start is the fact that the concept itself is simply easier to explain in positive terms than in negative ones. Stories on the Washington Post’s website today described Net Neutrality as a regulation that “ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users” and which marks “the government’s strongest move yet to ensure that Facebook updates, Google searches and Skype calls reach consumers’ homes unimpeded.” Based on that description, readers would be hard pressed to conclude that Net Neutrality is a bad thing, and much of the mainstream press used terms similar to the Post’s in describing today’s action by the FCC.

Taking the contrary position, there are two big problems with arguing that Net Neutrality is “an intrusive government interference into the management of broadband networks that will impede the evolution of new models of business on the Internet while requiring Internet innovators to first consider and navigate government regulations before implementing new Internet services.” First, it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue like the Post’s description of Net Neutrality. Second, it requires several additional explanations of exactly how Net Neutrality regulations would have that effect. It isn’t necessarily obvious from the statement alone.

The point of this is not to debate the merits of Net Neutrality itself, but to note that taking the time to carefully craft and package a proposal before presenting it (to the FCC or any other part of the government, including Congress) frames the debate in your favor. It is not an irrefutable advantage, but claiming the linguistic high ground forces opponents to expend far more of their resources fighting their way uphill, while the proponent conserves its legal and political resources waiting at the top. Many opponents will falter before they reach the top, and those that do make it will be exhausted from the climb.

In the case of Net Neutrality, vast resources were arrayed on both sides of the debate, but the political and public popularity engendered by the phrase “Net Neutrality” and the easily understood arguments on its behalf proved to be insurmountable today. It is safe to say, however, that opponents of Net Neutrality regulations are already regrouping for their next charge in Congress and in the courts, and that today’s skirmish was merely the first of many to come.

Published on:

By

The FCC has opened a rulemaking proposing reforms to its broadband health care initiatives for rural and tribal areas. The FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking originally released in July was published in the Federal Register today, which establishes the deadline for submitting Comments and Reply Comments in the proceeding. Comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are due on September 8, 2010. Reply Comments are due on September 23, 2010.

Chief among the proposals contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are:

• Creating a health infrastructure program that would support up to 85% of the construction costs of new regional and statewide broadband networks serving public and non-profit health care providers where broadband is currently unavailable or insufficient;
• Creating a health care broadband services program that would subsidize 50% of the monthly recurring costs of access to broadband services for eligible public or non-profit rural health care providers; and
• Expanding the class of health care providers eligible to receive these funds to include skilled nursing facilities, renal dialysis centers and facilities, and certain off-site administrative offices and data storage centers that perform support functions for health care providers.

We discussed the details of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a recent Client Advisory. Health care providers, as well as rural and tribal communities interested in improving their broadband access for local health care services, should get involved in this proceeding. It is important to provide the FCC with real world examples of the needs and problems faced in providing modern health care services in your community so that those needs are taken into account as the FCC attempts to craft its rural health care initiative.

By
Posted in: Internet & Online
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

5/18/2010
Prepaid “cards, codes and other devices” redeemable solely for telephone services are exempt from a new federal law that goes into effect August 22, 2010. However, if they can also be redeemed for related technology services, these products will (at least in most instances) be subject to provisions restricting fees, prohibiting expiration in less than five years, and imposing strict disclosure requirements if fees are charged or the products expire.

On March 23, 2010, the Federal Reserve Board (“Board”) issued its Final Rule implementing Title IV of the federal Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, which was signed into law by President Obama on May 22, 2009 (collectively, the “CARD Act”). The CARD Act amends the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), and the Final Rule amends the EFTA’s implementing regulation, Regulation E. It takes effect August 22, 2010. It applies to prepaid card products sold to a consumer on or after August 22, 2010, or provided to a consumer as a replacement for such product. State laws that are consistent with the CARD Act are not preempted, which means the CARD Act provides a minimum floor. State laws that provide greater protection for consumers are not inconsistent with the CARD Act.

The CARD Act restricts most fees and expiration dates on prepaid cards, and requires various disclosures if fees are charged or the products expire. This Advisory, one of several Advisories on the CARD Act, focuses on the exemption for cards, codes and other devices useable solely for telephone services (referred to collectively as “Prepaid Calling Cards”).1 Companies that offer or issue Prepaid Calling Cards may be surprised to learn that if these products are also redeemable for related technology services, they will not qualify for this exemption. All persons involved in issuing or distributing Prepaid Calling Cards should review and potentially revise their disclosures, as well as their redemption policies and procedures.

Continue reading →