Articles Posted in FCC Enforcement

Published on:

By

One of the curiosities of communications law is that while there are thousands of applicable rules and statutory provisions, there are a handful that the FCC likes to enforce with particular gusto. One of these is the rule regarding how on-air contests must be conducted. Over the years, many broadcasters have found this to be a “strict liability” rule, with any problem that occurs in an on-air contest being laid at the feet of the broadcaster along with the standard $4,000 fine. As a result, despite the myriad state laws governing the conduct of contests, broadcast contests tend to be some of the more carefully conducted contests out there.

The rule itself, Section 73.1216, is one of the most concise of the FCC’s rules, being only two sentences long: “A licensee that broadcasts or advertises information about a contest it conducts shall fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the contest, and shall conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised. No contest description shall be false, misleading or deceptive with respect to any material term.” Significantly longer than the rule itself, however, are the three footnotes to the rule, which provide details about what must be disclosed and how. The key requirements are that the “material terms” of the contest be disclosed on-air through “a reasonable number of announcements”. The typical basis for a $4,000 contest fine is that the station either fails to adequately disclose the material terms of the contest, or fails to comply with those terms in running the contest (for example, failing to award the stated prize).

What has changed since the current rule was adopted in 1976, however, is that stations increasingly have a station website with much content that is independent of their broadcast content, including online contests. While a station and its website will obviously cross-promote each other, neither is a substitute for the other, and each is a separate channel of communication with the public. As a general rule, the FCC has no jurisdiction over websites, and has not attempted to regulate contests that are not conducted on-air. While online contests are subject to numerous state and federal law requirements, they are not normally the subject of FCC proceedings.

Yesterday, however, the FCC released a decision proposing to fine a number of Clear Channel radio stations $22,000 for contest rule violations relating to a car contest conducted on the stations’ websites. Both the size of the fine and the fact that it does not relate to a true on-air contest make it a noteworthy decision. In the contest, listeners were invited to submit video commercials for Chevrolet (keep in mind the stations fined were radio stations), with the contestant submitting the best commercial winning a car. The FCC received a complaint from a listener who argued that the stations involved in the contest failed to disclose the material terms of the contest on-air, failed to conduct the contest in accordance with the stated rules, and improperly awarded the prize to a friend of an employee.

While the FCC declined to find that the contest was “fixed” merely because the winner was a friend of a station employee, it did find that the stations failed to disclose the material terms of the contest on-air, and that the stations failed to conduct the contest in accordance with the rules in any event, principally because the rules were internally inconsistent. One provision in the rules stated that entries would be accepted through March 21, 2008, but another provision stated that judges would select a winner on March 10, 2008, before the stated deadline for entries had passed.

In its defense, Clear Channel argued that the FCC’s rule doesn’t apply, since the contest was conducted on the stations’ websites, and was not a broadcast contest. In addition, it noted that the contest rules were posted on the station websites where the contest was being conducted. The FCC rejected this argument, stating that the stations had promoted the contest on-air, and that this cross-promotion made the contest a broadcast contest subject to the FCC’s rule. Interestingly, it does not appear from the FCC’s order that Clear Channel made the arguments that: (1) stations promote advertisers’ contests all of the time and the mere fact that a contest is promoted on-air does not extend the FCC’s jurisdiction to the conduct of those contests, and (2) there isn’t any reason from a First Amendment standpoint for requiring a different level of disclosure from a broadcaster than any other party choosing to promote its online contest on-air.

Having concluded that its contest rule applied, the FCC found that the stations violated that rule when they failed to air announcements disclosing the material terms of the contest rules, and that they also violated the rule by failing to accurately state the deadline for entries, creating confusion among listeners. Noting that the contest was promoted on multiple stations, that Clear Channel has previously been found in violation of the contest rule on multiple occasions, and that Clear Channel has “substantial revenues”, the FCC increased the base fine of $4000 to $22,000, an unusually high amount for a contest rule violation.

So what should broadcasters take away from this decision? First, that any on-air promotion of a contest makes it a “broadcast contest” unless the contest is conducted by a third party. In this regard, stations will want to be careful about co-sponsoring an advertiser’s contest, since an advertised contest that otherwise fully complies with all state and federal laws can suddenly cause a problem if the FCC concludes that it is a licensee-conducted contest.

Second, and this part is nothing new, stations and others conducting contests need to make sure that the contest rules are carefully written, consistent with law, and not confusing to potential contestants. Surprising as it is, major companies holding national contests frequently fail to accomplish this successfully, and the lawyers in our Contests & Sweepstakes practice are regularly called upon to draft or revise contest rules to avoid this problem. Given yesterday’s FCC decision, broadcasters have one more reason than everyone else to make sure that their contests, online or otherwise, are carefully conducted to comply with the law.

Published on:

By

Having just returned from watching oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the highly anticipated case Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, I can tell you that the case is living up to its billing as one of the more interesting matters before the Court. In it, the Court will finally have the opportunity to address the constitutionality of the FCC’s current interpretation of its indecency restrictions on television and radio stations. Specifically, the Court is considering whether the Second Circuit was correct in deciding that the FCC’s indecency ban is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment by being so vague and amorphous as to deprive broadcasters of clear notice as to what is and isn’t permissible.

The underpinnings of the FCC’s indecency regulation come from the now-famous George Carlin (RIP) “Seven Dirty Words” monologue. During the monologue, Carlin used, among other words, the “F-word” and the “S-word” repeatedly, and verbally presented a number of sexual and excretory images. The monologue was aired by a radio station, a complaint was filed, and the FCC ultimately determined that the broadcast was prohibited indecency. The case eventually found its way to the Supreme Court as the 1978 Pacifica case where, in a narrow 5-4 ruling, the FCC’s indecency finding survived a First Amendment challenge. The Court stated that the FCC’s decision was constitutional largely because “broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children.”

For 25 or so years following the Pacifica case, the FCC exercised a light touch in enforcing its indecency ban, as evidenced by its statement that “speech that is indecent must involve more than an isolated use of an offensive word.” However, in 2004, the FCC changed its longstanding policy on the use of isolated expletives, finding that a broadcast could be indecent even when the use of an expletive was not repeated or a literal description of sexual activities was not included.

As previously discussed by Scott Flick here and here, the FCC’s effort to expand the definition of actionable indecency is at the heart of the case now before the Supreme Court. That case involves three separate incidents that were broadcast on TV between 2002 and 2003, each of which were found to be indecent by the FCC. The first two, the “fleeting expletives” incidents, occurred on Fox during the Billboard Music Awards when Cher used the “F-word”, and then Nicole Richie used the “S-word” and “F-word” a year later on the same program.

The third broadcast at the center of the case involved a 2003 ABC broadcast of an episode of NYPD Blue that included the display of a woman’s buttocks. In both the Fox and ABC cases, the Second Circuit concluded that the FCC’s current indecency enforcement policy is “unconstitutional because it is impermissibly vague” since broadcasters do not have fair notice of “what is prohibited so that [they] may act accordingly.”

During today’s oral arguments, there was a great deal of lively banter between the Justices and the attorneys on both sides of the debate. The U.S. Solicitor General, on behalf of the government, argued that broadcast stations must comply with the FCC’s indecency regulations as the price of holding a broadcast license and the privilege of “free and exclusive use of public spectrum.” Justice Kagan noted, however, that the government’s “contract theory” can only go so far when it comes to the First Amendment.

In response to the Solicitor General’s claim that television today is as pervasive as it has ever been, Justice Ginsburg pointed out that the major complaint the broadcasters have is that the “censor” here, the FCC, can act arbitrarily by saying it is okay to broadcast otherwise indecent language or scenes during Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan, but that it is not OK to air such material during an episode of NYPD Blue. Later, Justice Kagan joked that it seems like nobody “can use dirty words except for Steven Spielberg.” While intended as a joke, the Justice would likely not be surprised that communications lawyers do indeed refer to the “Spielberg exception” in reviewing content before it airs.

In challenging the FCC’s regulations, counsel for the broadcasters noted that the FCC’s indecency policies had been working fine until the FCC “wildly changed their approach” in 2004 and that the current context-based approach is impermissibly vague. Of particular interest given that the pending cases all involve television broadcasts, when Justice Alito asked whether the broadcasters would accept the Supreme Court overruling Pacifica for purposes of television only and not for radio, the response in the courtroom appeared to be “yes”. Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia appeared skeptical of the broadcasters’ arguments, with Chief Justice Roberts stating that “we, the government” only want to regulate “a few channels” and Justice Scalia remarking that the “government can require a modicum of values”.

While you can only read so much into oral arguments, the huge crowd and the media circus I saw when leaving the Supreme Court underscore the interest in, and the importance of, the Court’s ultimate decision in this case. Aside from the fact that Justice Sotamayor is recused from the case, and two Justices that voted against the FCC at an earlier stage of the case have since left the Court, the drama in this case has been dramatically increased given the strange bedfellows it could create among liberal and conservative Justices on the Court. Given that Justice Thomas is on record as criticizing the “deep intrusion in the First Amendment right of broadcasters” created by the FCC’s indecency policies, it is not out of the realm of possibility to see Justice Thomas siding with Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan (and maybe even Justice Kennedy) in finding that the FCC’s indecency policy is unconstitutional.

However, that result is hardly a given. We have no idea how Justice Kagan will rule given her short time on the Court, nor do we know yet whether Chief Justice Robert’s antipathy towards governmental paternalism — evidenced in the Court’s decision this past summer overturning a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors — might find voice in this case as well. While many issues polarize people based upon their political perspective, fans of the First Amendment tend to be found all along the political spectrum. How the case is framed is therefore critically important. Is this a case about protecting children from ostensibly harmful content, or is this a case about making broadcast television fit only for children during the hours when most adults watch it? On a less philosophical and more pragmatic level, what are the First Amendment implications of making broadcasters have to guess what content the government will conclude is inappropriate for their audiences? Broadcasters are hoping the the Court’s decision in this case will bring an end to those guessing games.

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 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:

  • Malfunctioning Monitor Costs Broadcaster $10,000
  • FCC Fines Tower Owner $13,000 For Lighting and Ownership Issues

Faulty Remote Light Monitoring System Results in $10,000 Fine

According to a recent Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), agents at the FCC’s Norfolk Field Office received a complaint of an unlit tower from the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). Two weeks later, agents from the Norfolk Field Office contacted the local Sheriff’s Office for a visual confirmation of the tower’s lighting status. A deputy indicated that all but one of the lights on the 700 foot tower were not functioning and that the only functioning light was located 100 feet from the ground.
Section 17.51 of the FCC’s Rules requires certain structures to install and maintain red obstruction lighting. These lights must be functional between sunset and sunrise. The base fine for failure to comply with lighting and painting regulations is $10,000. Sections 17.47, 17.48 and 17.49 require structure owners to 1) inspect all automatic or mechanical lighting control devices at least every three months, 2) notify the FAA immediately of tower lighting malfunctions or extinguishments, and 3) maintain logs detailing any malfunctions or extinguishments.
The Norfolk field agents conducted an onsite inspection of the tower almost one month after receiving notification of the complaint from the FAA. The tower owner’s contract engineer was present at the time of the onsite inspection. During that inspection, the agents confirmed that only one tower light was functioning and that the tower’s remote light monitoring system was also malfunctioning. The NAL indicated that the consulting engineer admitted that the monitoring system had notified the tower owner that the top beacon was not functioning only six days prior to the onsite inspection. The tower owner notified the FAA at that time. The engineer also stated that the tower owner did not maintain tower logs detailing regular tower and control device inspections or instances of malfunctions.

In light of these failures, and the period of time over which they occurred, the FCC assessed a fine of $10,000 to the tower owner.

Reporting Failures Result in Fines Totaling $13,000

The registrant of an antenna structure in California was recently found liable for $13,000 for violations related to the antenna structure’s red obstruction lighting and for failing to notify the FCC of the structure’s change in ownership.

In response to complaints that the structure’s obstruction lighting had failed, agents from the Los Angeles Field Office contacted the registrant of the structure. Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 17.51(a) of the FCC’s Rules require that antenna structures be painted with aviation orange and white and have red obstruction lighting indicating the top and midpoints of the structure. Upon inspection, however, the agent found that none of the structure’s lights were functioning between sunset and sunrise. The Enforcement Bureau subsequently issued a Letter of Inquiry. In response, the registrant admitted that the lights were not operational for a period of two months, and he was unsure if he had notified the Federal Aviation Administration at the time of the outage, as required by Section 17.48 of the FCC’s Rules. As noted above, the base forfeiture for failing to comply with the required lighting and painting standards is $10,000. Though the violation was “repeated” because the outage lasted two months, the FCC did not issue an upward adjustment of the penalty.
The FCC further found that the registrant had violated Section 17.57 of the FCC’s Rules, which requires that tower owners immediately notify the FCC of any changes in ownership. The registrant assumed ownership of the structure in April 2008, but did not update the ownership information filed with the FCC until January 2011, after being contacted by agents from the Enforcement Bureau. The base forfeiture for violating the rules pertaining to tower ownership notifications is $3,000. As a result, the FCC tacked on an additional $3,000 fine, resulting in a total proposed fine of $13,000 for the tower owner.

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 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:

  • Cable Operator Subject to $25,000 Fine for EAS and Signal Leakage Violations
  • Late-filed Renewals Garner $26,000 Fine

Interfering Signal Leakage Proves Costly for Florida Cable Television Operator

The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) to the operator of a Florida cable television system for multiple violations of the FCC’s rules. The NAL proposes a $25,000 forfeiture for the system based upon violation of the FCC’s cable signal leakage standards, failure to submit the required registration form to the FCC, and failure to maintain operational Emergency Alert System (“EAS”) equipment.

During a 2011 inspection of the system, agents from the Tampa Office of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau discovered extensive signal leakage. In order to protect aeronautical frequencies from interference, 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. Inspection of the cable system revealed twenty signal leaks, fourteen of which were over 100 µV/m, with the highest measuring 1,023 µV/m. In addition, the system’s CLI measured 64.88, exceeding the maximum permitted level of 64. The operator also acknowledged the system had not maintained cable leakage logs or performed routine maintenance as required by the FCC. The base forfeiture for these violations is $8,000.

The FCC also found two other violations. In 2010, FCC agents discovered the cable system had not filed its required registration statement with the FCC. In the 2011 inspection, the owner admitted the station had not submitted the required form, and, as of the date of the NAL, had still not filed the form. Section 76.1801 of the FCC’s Rules specifies a base forfeiture of $3,000 for failing to file required forms. Since the system had still not submitted the form more than a year after being instructed to do so, the FCC ordered an upward adjustment of the fine by $1,500.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Both TV and radio stations are learning that medical marijuana can give you a bad headache. However, everyone, including the Department of Justice, currently seems uncertain as to the long-term prognosis for stations that aired medical marijuana ads. As I wrote here last week, leading to a number of articles on the issue in trade press and around the web this week, it is clear that the DOJ has abandoned any pretense of taking a restrained approach to the natural conflict between state laws permitting medical marijuana and federal laws prohibiting it as an illegal drug. The question I had raised back in May, and focused on in last week’s post, was whether the threat to media running medical marijuana ads had moved from theoretical to imminent.

When the DOJ sent letters to the landlords of medical marijuana dispensaries last week telling them to evict their dispensary tenants or risk imprisonment, forfeiture of their buildings and confiscation of all rent collected from those dispensaries, it became clear that media collecting ad revenues for promoting the sale of medical marijuana could just as easily be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. What I found interesting about the reaction to last week’s post, however, was an assumption by many that this is a radio-only issue, and that television stations “did not inhale” medical marijuana ad revenues these past few years. However, the first (and as far as I know, only) medical marijuana complaint pending at the FCC was lodged against a large market network TV affiliate.

The DOJ apparently doesn’t see it as a radio-only matter either. When the issue was raised by a reporter this week, U.S Attorney Laura Duffy caused a stir by announcing that her next target is indeed medical marijuana advertising, noting that she has been “hearing radio and seeing TV advertising” promoting the drug.

The good news for media in general is that, unlike the FCC, the DOJ is less concerned about past conduct, and more interested in reducing future medical marijuana advertising (and thereby reducing future medical marijuana sales). It was therefore in character when Ms. Duffy announced that her first step would be notifying media “that they are in violation of federal law.” The DOJ followed a similar approach in 2003 when it sent letters to broadcasters and other media threatening prosecution of those running ads for gambling websites on grounds that those media outlets were “aiding and abetting” the illegal activities. You can read a copy of the letter here. I note with a bit of irony that one of the arguments made by the DOJ in the 2003 letter is that stations should not be airing ads for online gambling “since, presumably, they would not run advertisements for illegal narcotics sales.”

While the DOJ later pursued some media companies for running ads for online gambling, including seizing revenue received from those ads, its efforts were principally aimed at making an example of those who failed to “take the hint” from the DOJ’s 2003 letter. It seems likely that the DOJ will follow a similar path with regard to medical marijuana ads, focusing primarily on putting an end to the airing of such ads as opposed to pursuing hundreds of legal actions against those who previously aired them.

Also providing at least a small sense of relief for media are more recent statements from the office of Ben Wagner, one of (along with Laura Duffy) California’s four U.S. Attorneys, indicating that he is not currently focusing on medical marijuana advertising. While that could obviously change at any time, it does suggest that any action against media for medical marijuana advertising is at the discretion of the individual U.S. Attorney, and not an objective of the DOJ as a whole.

If the DOJ remains true to its past practices, then broadcasters and other media can likely avoid becoming a target for legal action by ceasing to air medical marijuana ads now. Pursuing individual media outlets is resource-intensive for the DOJ, and raises some thorny legal issues. More to the point, there is little to be accomplished by such actions if media outlets have already stopped airing the ads.

With regard to the FCC, however, broadcasters are not so lucky. Unlike the DOJ, which can choose whether to pursue an action against a media outlet, the FCC will likely be forced to address the issue both in the context of adjudicating complaints against broadcasters for airing medical marijuana ads, and in considering whether a station’s past performance merits renewal of its broadcast license. Given the classification of marijuana as an illegal drug under federal law, and particularly in light of the government’s other attacks on components of the medical marijuana industry, it will be difficult for the FCC to avoid confronting the issue, even where a station stopped airing the ads years ago. As a result, print and online media outlets may be able to get the marijuana advertising out of their systems fairly quickly, but broadcasters could be suffering legal flashbacks for years to come.

Published on:

By

In what became one of our more heavily circulated posts, I wrote a piece back in early May entitled “Will Marijuana Ads Make License Renewals Go Up in Smoke?” It noted that the Department of Justice was showing signs of abandoning its “live and let live” policy toward medical marijuana producers and dispensaries operating in compliance with state laws.

Because advertising by such dispensaries had become a significant revenue source for broadcasters in states where medical marijuana was legalized, the DOJ’s about-face placed broadcasters in an awkward position. While medical marijuana may be legal under state law, it has never been legal under federal law. This means that broadcast stations, which the law deems to be engaged in an interstate activity, and whose livelihood depends on license renewal by the FCC, are an easy target for a Federal Government intent upon suppressing the sale of medical marijuana. The takeaway from my post was that stations should think long and hard before accepting medical marijuana ads.

It became clear this morning that it was time to do an update on the subject when an article from the Denver Post came across my desk noting that “the last bank in Colorado to openly work with the medical-marijuana industry — Colorado Springs State Bank — officially closed down the accounts of dispensaries and others in the state’s legal marijuana business over concerns about working with companies that are, by definition, breaking federal law.” Like broadcasters, the banking industry is heavily regulated by the Federal Government, and it appears that Colorado bankers have collectively concluded that, despite the large sums of money involved, it is not worth the risk of dealing with medical marijuana dispensaries and incurring the wrath of the feds.

That development alone should concern broadcasters airing medical marijuana ads. However, late today, word got out that the DOJ, through its four U.S. Attorneys in California, sent letters threatening medical marijuana dispensaries in California with criminal charges and confiscation of their property if they do not shut down within 45 days. Of particular interest to broadcasters (and any other media running medical marijuana ads), these letters were sent not just to dispensaries, but to their landlords, effectively telling the landlords to evict their tenant or risk imprisonment, forfeiture of their building and confiscation of all rent collected for the period the dispensary was in business.

The DOJ’s willingness to threaten those who are not engaged in the sale of medical marijuana, but who merely provide services to those who are, should raise alarm bells for media everywhere. If landlords who collect rent from medical marijuana dispensaries are at risk, media that collect ad revenues from promoting the sale of medical marijuana could just as easily be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. More to the point, the Federal Government is in a much better position to exercise leverage over the livelihoods of broadcasters than over California property owners not engaged in any form of interstate activity.

Colorado bankers have apparently already reached a similar conclusion, and the DOJ’s stepped-up campaign in California against medical marijuana removes any doubt for broadcasters and other media as to which way the federal winds are now blowing. You can expect a heated legal and political battle between the states and the Federal Government over the DOJ’s efforts to nullify state medical marijuana laws. While that battle ensues, broadcasters and other media will want to do their best to stay out of the line of fire.

Published on:

By

As we previously reported here and here, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), along with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), will conduct the first nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS) Test on November 9, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern.

FEMA and the FCC have strongly urged EAS Participants to get advance word of the test out to the public in order to avoid an Orson Welles “War of the Worlds” type of panic when the national test is initiated. To that end, FEMA has produced a Public Service Announcement (PSA) that EAS Participants can use to forewarn the public of the national test. The FCC has indicated that it will soon be making scripts available on its website for EAS participants to use to warn the public.

An interesting issue that has arisen in connection with broadcasters and other EAS Participants using the PSAs is whether the spots require sponsorship identification under the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules. Even though it is reasonable to argue that no “money, service or other valuable consideration [will be] directly or indirectly paid, or promised to or charged or accepted” for airing the PSA, recent FCC sponsorship identification decisions involving Video News Releases have fined parties for using spots (unrelated to EAS) provided free of charge by third parties (in this case, FEMA).

Given the public service nature of the spot, and the fact that it is being provided by the Federal Government, it seems unlikely that the FCC will have an appetite for pursuing those who air the spot without adding sponsorship identification. However, in light of the FCC’s decisions finding fault with airing even a portion of a third party Video News Release without including sponsorship identification, those airing FEMA spots might want to consider adding sponsorship ID tags to them.

It is also important to remember that the FCC will be requiring EAS Participants to file reports on the results of the test, including whether, and from whom, parties received the alert message and whether they were able to rebroadcast the test message. The FCC is in the process of establishing an electronic filing system on its website to allow EAS Participants to file the reports in as close to real time as possible following the test. Although only paper filing of the reports is required under the FCC’s rules, the FCC is strongly encouraging parties to file electronically in order to allow FEMA and the FCC to review the results as quickly as possible. This will allow them to determine sooner rather than later if there are any problems with the EAS system that need to be addressed.

While the FCC has left open the question of whether it may take enforcement action against parties reporting problems in fulfilling their EAS obligations during the national test, it is clear is that the FCC will have little sympathy for parties who fail to actually participate in the test at all. Also, given that the FCC’s rules currently require weekly and monthly EAS tests, EAS Participants should ensure that their EAS equipment is operating in compliance with FCC rules now so that they have no unhappy surprises to report to the FCC following the national test.

More information regarding the details of the national test can be found on the FCC’s website here, and on FEMA’s website here. The national EAS test date is drawing near, and the time for resolving these preparatory questions is running out.

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:

  • Low Power Broadcaster’s Defiance Results in $7,000 Upward Adjustment
  • Unauthorized Post-Sunset Operations Lead to $4,000 Fine for AM Station

Belligerence Costs a Florida Broadcaster an Additional $7,000

Pursuant to a recently issued Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), a Florida low power FM broadcaster was penalized an additional $7,000 for refusing to power down its transmitter at the request of agents from the FCC’s Tampa Field Office. In June 2010, FCC field agents, following up on a complaint lodged by the Federal Aviation Administration regarding interference to its Air Traffic Control frequency at 133.75 MHz, employed direction-finding techniques to locate the source of the interference. The source turned out to be a low power FM station. When approached by the agents, a “representative of the station” repeatedly refused to power down the station even though the agents explained that the interference was an “ongoing safety hazard” and a “safety of life hazard.”

During a subsequent telephone conversation between the station owner and an agent, the owner refused to let his representative at the station power down the transmitter until the station engineer was present. The station owner arrived at the transmitter site 30 minutes later and allowed the agents to inspect the station. At the time of the inspection, agents discovered that the station was using a transmitter that was not certified by the FCC, a direct violation of Section 73.1660 of the FCC’s Rules. The base forfeiture for operating with unauthorized equipment is $5,000.

Two months after the site inspection, the Tampa Field Office issued a Letter of Inquiry. In its response, the licensee admitted that the noncompliant transmitter had been in use for approximately four months, up to and including the date of the site inspection. The response also indicated that the transmitter was replaced by a certified transmitter on July 9, 2010.

The FCC decided that the “particularly egregious” nature of the violation, and the station owner’s “deliberate disregard” of an air traffic safety issue, warranted an upward adjustment of $7,000 to the base fine. The NAL therefore assessed a $12,000 fine against the station.

Continue reading →