RSS FCC Headlines
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

Given that the FCC adopted its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish the parameters of its much-anticipated broadcast spectrum auctions on September 28, 2012, and released the text of that NPRM on October 2, 2012, you would think that the communications industry would now be buzzing over the details of the FCC’s long-in-the-making plan. Instead, from many corners of the industry, there has been stunned silence; not because there were any real surprises in the NPRM, but because the NPRM made clear to those not previously involved in the process the sheer enormity of the tasks ahead.

Also feeding the industry’s muted reaction is the fact that, because there were no surprises, the industry doesn’t know much more now than it did before about how the auctions will be structured. Instead, we are left with many excellent but unanswered questions asked by the NPRM, leaving the auction rules and structure a very ethereal proposition. As the annual deluge of Halloween horror movies reminds us, people are afraid of ethereal entities, and are unlikely to visit the FCC’s cabin in the woods (despite the “big money for spectrum” signs out front) until the FCC is able to remove the dark mystery from this undertaking.

On the one hand, the FCC’s staff deserves immense credit for asking the right questions on what is unquestionably the most complex undertaking the FCC has ever attempted (it makes you long for the simple-by-comparison DTV transition, which only took 13 years to accomplish). On the other hand, asking the right questions meant producing a 140 page, 425 paragraph NPRM, along with an additional 65 pages of appendices and commissioner statements.

The NPRM is a densely packed document with numerous questions and issues raised for public comment in each paragraph. Part of the problem, however, is that in order to get the entire package of materials down to 205 pages total, some of the NPRM’s questions had to be condensed so severely as to make it difficult to discern what precisely the FCC is asking about or proposing. As a result, you will note that a lot of the third-party summaries circulating are short on condensed narrative and long on direct quotes from the NPRM–often a sign that the person drafting the summary gave up on trying to figure out what the NPRM was trying to say, and decided to let the reader take a crack at it instead.

Comments on the NPRM are due on December 21, 2012, with Reply Comments due on February 19, 2013. While the FCC indicates that it intends to hold the spectrum auctions in 2014, keep in mind that once the Reply Comments are filed, if the FCC were able to resolve a paragraph’s worth of issues each and every day the FCC is open for business after that date, it would resolve the final issues in October of 2014. It would then need to release an order adopting the final policies and rules, and begin the process of setting up the reverse auction (for broadcasters interested in releasing spectrum) and the forward auction (for those interested in purchasing that spectrum for wireless broadband). Completing that process before 2015 will be extremely challenging.

Even this understates the actual time that will be required for the FCC to have a shot at a successful auction. Critically important to the success of such auctions is providing adequate time for potential spectrum sellers and buyers to analyze the final rules and assets to be sold to determine if they are interested in participating and at what price. If the FCC wants to encourage participation, it will need to ensure that potential spectrum sellers and buyers have at least a number of months to assess their options under the final rules. Otherwise, it is likely that many who might participate will not have attained an adequate level of comfort in the process to participate, or at least not at the prices the FCC is hoping to see. In that case, they will elect to remain on the sidelines.

Given the number of moving parts and these related considerations (which ignore entirely the possibility of additional delay from court appeals of the eventual rules), a 2014 auction seems very optimistic unless the FCC’s goal shifts from having a successful auction to just having any form of auction as soon as possible. While those already intent upon being a buyer or seller of spectrum would certainly prefer a fast auction since that means quicker access to spectrum and spectrum dollars and less competition for both, the FCC and the public have a vested interest in holding auctions with a broader definition of success (in terms of dollars to the treasury, less disruption of broadcast service, producing large enough swaths of spectrum to maximize spectrum efficiency, etc.).

This morning, the FCC announced an October 26, 2012 workshop focusing on broadcaster issues in the NPRM, so efforts at removing at least some of the mystery surrounding the auctions are already underway. Given that all television broadcasters will be affected by this process, whether through participation in the reverse auction or by being forced to modify their facilities in the subsequent spectrum repacking, it would be wise to participate in the workshop, which is also being streamed on the Internet.

And one last bit of good news: the workshop will be held at the Commission Meeting Room at FCC Headquarters in Washington, DC rather than at that cabin in the woods mentioned above. However, don’t be surprised if there is still a “big money for spectrum” banner over the door when you get there.

Published on:

By

The FCC has initiated a rulemaking proceeding seeking comments on a comprehensive review of its satellite and earth station licensing and operating rules. The nearly 100-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is the FCC’s first broad reexamination of its Part 25 rules in over fifteen years. Among other items, the FCC’s proposed revisions include:

  • Focusing the rules on addressing interference issues and removing unnecessary Commission oversight and regulation of technical decisions.
  • Increasing the number of earth station applications eligible for routine and streamlined processing.
  • Removing unnecessary reporting rules and consolidating remaining requirements for annual reporting, while improving reporting of emergency contacts.
  • Providing greater flexibility to earth station applicants in verifying antenna performance.
  • Consolidating and clarifying several of the milestone requirements for space stations.
  • Codifying the FCC practice of granting a single earth station license covering multiple antennas located in close proximity to each other.
  • Updating, improving, and consolidating definitions and technical terms used throughout Part 25.

With these proposed changes, the FCC hopes to remove administrative burdens on stakeholders and FCC staff, expedite its licensing process, and to facilitate satellite and earth station operations. The comment filing deadlines have not yet been set, but will occur 45 days after the FCC’s rulemaking order is published in the Federal Register. Parties interested in commenting on the FCC’s proposals, or wishing to provide alternative proposals for the FCC to consider, will want to begin gearing up for this proceeding by talking these issues through with counsel to determine what to propose, and how best to present it to the FCC.

Published on:

By

September 2012
Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • FCC Follows Up a $25,000 Fine With a $236,500 Fine
  • Two Tower Owners Fined for Fading Paint

FCC Issues Second Fine to Cable TV Operator for $236,500
As we previously reported in October 2011, the operator of a cable television system in Florida was fined $25,000 for a variety of violations of the FCC’s Rules, including failing to install and maintain operational Emergency Alert System (“EAS”) equipment, failing to operate its system within the required cable signal leakage limits, and failing to register the cable system with the FCC. This month, the FCC issued a second Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (“NAL”) to the operator for continued violations of the FCC’s cable signal leakage and EAS rules and for failing to respond to communications from the FCC requiring that the operator submit a written statement of compliance.

In January 2011, agents from the Tampa Office of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau inspected the cable system and discovered extensive signal leakage, prompting the issuance of a NAL in 2011. The FCC has established signal leakage rules to reduce emissions that could cause interference with aviation frequencies. Sections 76.605 and 76.611 of the FCC’s Rules establish a maximum cable signal leakage standard of 20 microvolts per meter (“µV/m”) for any point in the system and a maximum Cumulative Leak Index (“CLI”) of 64. If potentially harmful interference cannot be eliminated, the FCC’s Rules require that the system immediately suspend operations following notification from the FCC’s local field office. Normal operations cannot resume until the interference has been eliminated “to the satisfaction of” the FCC’s local field office.

In early September 2011, agents from the Enforcement Bureau conducted a follow-up inspection of the cable system. During the inspection, the agents discovered 33 leakages, 22 of which measured over 100 µV/m, and found that the CLI for the system was 86.97, well in excess of the maximum permitted. Two days after the inspection, the local field office issued an Order to Cease Operations, directing the cable system to cease operations until the leakages were eliminated and to seek written approval from the local field office prior to resuming normal operations. At the time of its issuance, the President of the cable system verbally consented to abide by the terms of the Order. However, the cable system operator never contacted the field office to seek approval to resume operations, and the field office has yet to approve further cable system operations.

Between September 2011 and March 2012, agents from the FCC inspected the cable system an additional five times. During those inspections, the agents found that not only had the cable system resumed operation without permission, but they once again observed numerous signal leakages during each inspection.

Continue reading →

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.

Published on:

By

The FCC recently released an Order giving companies greater flexibility in how they can structure foreign investment in common carrier licensees, such as wireless companies that provide phone service. This action, taken in a proceeding initiated last year, is a first step towards simplifying and streamlining the FCC’s cumbersome foreign ownership review and approval process, with the goal of facilitating increased foreign investment in telecommunications companies.

The FCC’s foreign ownership policy is governed by Section 310 of the Communications Act. Section (b)(3) of the statute requires the FCC to prohibit certain foreign entities from being FCC licenses themselves and from directly holding ownership interests that exceed specified levels in certain types of FCC licensees, such as common carrier licensees. The FCC’s International Bureau previously interpreted this provision to strictly prohibit foreign entities from having more than a 20% non-controlling interest (direct or indirect) in an FCC common carrier licensee.

The Order replaces this absolute prohibition with a discretionary policy already in use under a different section of the statute, Section 310(b)(4). That section restricts foreign entities from having more than a 25% controlling interest (direct or indirect) in any parent company of an FCC common carrier licensee (among other entities), unless the FCC specifically approves a greater foreign ownership interest.

The FCC makes the determination of whether it should allow greater foreign investment under Section 310(b)(4) and now under Section 310(b)(3), by examining whether the foreign investment is from a World Trade Organization (WTO) Member country, using a “principal place of business” test. If under the principal place of business test the investment is from a WTO Member country, the proposed foreign investment is presumed to be competitive and in the public interest. Where the investment is from a non-WTO Member country, the FCC applies what is known as an “effective competitive opportunities” or “ECO” test. The purpose of the ECO test is to determine whether competitive opportunities exist for American companies in those non-WTO Member countries and whether the foreign investment in the U.S. will serve the public interest.

The FCC’s foreign ownership review and approval process under Section 310(b)(4) has historically proven to be complex and time-consuming, both for licensees and the FCC. Licensees are required to engage in costly and extensive efforts in order to compile detailed information regarding citizenship and principal places of business of investors. There is no exception for individuals and entities that hold even de minimis interests through multiple intervening investment vehicles and holding companies. Moreover, licensees often have to conduct this exercise repeatedly given the fluid nature of investments. For its part, the FCC must expend considerable resources of its own processing (and often reprocessing) the voluminous and detailed information submitted by licensees.

The FCC’s decision liberalizes only its ownership policies under Section 310(b)(3). It leaves for another day the extensive reforms proposed by the FCC in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding foreign ownership under Section 310(b)(4).

The FCC’s Order has been published in the Federal Register and is now in effect. Parties interested in learning more about the FCC’s Order or the foreign ownership reform proceeding should contact Pillsbury for advice.

Published on:

By

In what seems to be the longest presidential campaign in history, tomorrow, September 7th, marks the beginning of the final stretch. That’s the first day of Lowest Unit Charge Season, the 60-day period before the November 6th, 2012 general election. During that time (which also occurs in the 45 days before a primary election), broadcast stations may charge no more than their lowest rate for each particular class of ad time purchased for a “use” by a legally qualified candidate.

Of course, while the concept sounds simple enough, its implementation at stations with dozens of different classes of ad time has proven to be a biennial headache for broadcasters. However, particularly for stations in political swing states, it can be a fairly profitable headache, and well worth the regulatory aspirin needed to get through it.

Contrary to a common misconception, Lowest Unit Charge applies to all legally qualified candidates during the LUC window, and not just to federal candidates. Also, keep in mind that the 60-day Lowest Unit Charge window is relevant only to the issue of rates. Other political broadcast rules, like the requirements for reasonable access for federal candidates and equal opportunities apply as soon as there are enough legally qualified candidates to trigger them (one in the case of reasonable access, and at least two in the case of equal opportunities, since there has to be a competing candidate to demand an equal opportunity in response to the first candidate’s airtime).

If the statements above have left you perplexed, confused, or questioning the very meaning of your existence, you should definitely take some time to look at the current edition of our Political Broadcasting Advisory. The Advisory fills in lots of detail on the matters discussed above, as well as myriad other issues created by the complexities of selling (or buying) political ad time in a regulated environment.

So, update the rate card attached to your Political Disclosure Statement, and get ready for the final stretch of a political season that has been excruciatingly long for viewers and listeners, but which will be over all too quickly for many broadcasters.

Published on:

By

July 2012
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 is a special issue regarding recent FCC actions that provide a detailed (and expensive) look at Section 73.1206, the prohibition on recording telephone calls for broadcast.

FCC Issues a Total of $41,000 in Fines for Broadcaster Airing Prank Telephone Calls

The close of August in Washington, D.C. has brought with it a surge of beautiful weather, baseball excitement (for the first time in recent memory), and … forfeiture orders related to the improper recording of telephone calls for broadcast. On August 22nd, the FCC issued two forfeiture orders assessing a combined $41,000 in fines against licensees owned by the same parent company for violations of the telephone broadcast rule.

The telephone broadcast rule, Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s Rules, requires that, “[b]efore recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, or broadcasting such a conversation simultaneously with its occurrence, a licensee shall inform any party to the call of the licensee’s intention to broadcast the conversation, except where such party is aware, or may be presumed to be aware from the circumstances of the conversation, that it is being or likely will be broadcast.” While the rule language only talks about providing notice to the calling party, the FCC has reiterated many times that when a station employee intends to record a call for broadcast or broadcasts the call live, the employee must also obtain the party’s consent before recording the call or going live.

Both orders released on August 22nd involved a finding that the licensee had violated this rule. The first order involved prank calls made in April 2006 by radio personalities to members of the public during a comedy segment of the station’s morning show. In one conversation, the caller pretended to be an intruder hiding under the bed of the person receiving the call; in another, the caller pretended to be a loan shark bent upon collecting a debt.

The FCC began investigating the prank calls after receiving a complaint from a station listener. During the investigation, the licensee indicated it was unable to confirm or deny whether the prank calls aired on its morning show, and could not provide a recording or transcript of the program. The licensee acknowledged, however, that the program identified in the complaint was aired on the station and was simulcast on two co-owned stations.

The second forfeiture order released on the 22nd also involved the broadcast of an alleged prank call in which the caller pretended to be a hospital employee who then informed the call recipient that the recipient’s husband had been in a motorcycle accident and died at the hospital. When questioned about the incident, the licensee told the FCC that its parent company had contracted with an outside vendor who made and recorded the call. The licensee admitted that it broadcast the call on multiple occasions.

In the first case, the FCC had proposed a $25,000 fine. In the second case, the FCC had proposed a $16,000 fine. In both cases, the licensee urged cancellation of the proposed fines, to no avail. In batting down a myriad of arguments raised by the licensees, the FCC affirmed not only its broad investigative powers to enforce Section 73.1206, but also the licensees’ responsibility to both adhere to and demonstrate their adherence to the Commission’s Rules.

These two decisions provide an excellent primer for broadcasters on the FCC’s enforcement of the telephone broadcast rule, as between them, the FCC addressed a multitude of defenses raised by the licensees, ultimately concluding that none of those defenses could prevent the imposition of very substantial fines. More specifically, the FCC shot down each of the following licensee arguments:

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Last week the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Consent Decree involving a “voluntary contribution” of more than a quarter of a million dollars by a well-known guitar manufacturer, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, relating to claims of unauthorized marketing of bass amplifiers, pre-amplifiers, tuners, audio mixers, and wireless microphones. While one might be puzzled by the FCC’s interest in regulating musical equipment, the fact is that these devices, like virtually all modern day products, incorporate digital circuitry and generate (intentionally or unintentionally) radio-frequency signals that can cause interference to other spectrum users. The FCC’s action is a reminder to all types of businesses that digital devices are regulated and must comply with the FCC’s Part 2 and Part 15 rules regarding equipment authorization, including certification, verification, and declarations of conformity.

The FCC’s investigation into Fender’s products began in June 2010, when the FCC sent the company a letter of inquiry. While the content of the letter is not publicly available, it appears that the FCC sought information about when Fender received equipment authorizations for certain products, the labeling of such products, and the information disclosed in the user manuals for those products.
Over the course of the next two years, Fender, through its legal counsel, submitted a number of filings responding to the FCC’s inquiry, and executed tolling agreements that permitted the FCC to extend its investigation. Ultimately, Fender reached an agreement with the FCC terminating the investigation. In the agreement, Fender did not acknowledge any wrongdoing (nor did the FCC reach any such conclusion), but the company voluntarily agreed to contribute $265,000 to the U.S. Treasury and institute an internal program to ensure future compliance with the FCC’s rules. While this is nowhere close to being the most expensive equipment-related contribution or fine the FCC has received or assessed for unlicensed devices (in one case the FCC assessed a $1 million dollar forfeiture), it does send a loud message to manufacturers and importers of almost all modern day electronic devices that the FCC polices its equipment authorization rules and treats potential violations seriously.

For an overview of the FCC’s Part 2 and Part 15 rules, you can check out our Client Advisory on the subject.

Published on:

By

The FCC has announced that full payment of all applicable Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012) must be received no later than 11:59 PM, ET, on September 13, 2012. As of today, the Commission’s automated filing and payment system, the Fee Filer System, is now available for filing and payment of FY 2012 regulatory fees.

As we reported last month, the FCC released a Report and Order containing final determinations as to how much each FCC licensee will have to pay in Annual Regulatory Fees for FY 2012. The FCC collects Annual Regulatory Fees to offset the cost of its non-application processing functions, such as conducting rulemaking proceedings.

These annual regulatory fees are owed for most FCC authorizations held as of October 1, 2011 by any licensee or permittee which is not otherwise exempt from such fees. As has been the case since 2009, the FCC requires that licensees use the Commission’s online Fee Filer System to submit their regulatory fees. In order to do so, parties must have a valid FCC Registration Number (FRN) and password. Payment can be made with a credit card, online payment from a bank account, check (after receiving an electronic voucher via Fee Filer), or wire transfer. More information regarding submitting a payment can be found here at the FCC’s Regulatory Fees website. Note that, effective June 30, 2012, the U.S. Treasury is no longer accepting credit card payments greater than $49,999.99.

For more information on annual regulatory fees, including assistance in preparing and filing them with the FCC, please contact any of the lawyers in the Communications Practice Section.