Articles Posted in FCC Enforcement

Published on:

By and

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

  • Public File Violations by Pennsylvania Class A Television Station Yield $6,000 Consent Decree
  • Spurious Emissions Lead to Notice of Violation for Hawaiian FM Station Licensee
  • Texas Radio Station Licenses Designated for Hearing Over Unauthorized Transfer of Control and Lack of Candor Claims

Pennsylvania Class A TV Station Licensee Agrees to $6,000 Consent Decree for Public File Violations

The Video Division of the FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of two Pennsylvania Class A TV stations to resolve an investigation into the stations’ failure to timely upload required documents to their online Public Inspection Files.

Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the FCC’s Rules requires that every Class A TV station place in its Public Inspection File “a list of programs that have provided the station’s most significant treatment of community issues during the preceding three month period.”  The list must include a brief narrative of the issues addressed, as well as the date, time, duration, and title of each program aired addressing those issues.  The list must be placed in the Public Inspection File within 10 days of the end of each calendar quarter.

In March 2023, the licensee filed its license renewal applications for the two stations.  In the applications, the licensee certified that it had timely uploaded all required documentation to each station’s Public Inspection File during the license term.  However, after FCC staff notified the licensee that documents were in fact missing from both stations’ Public Inspection Files, the licensee belatedly uploaded five missing Issues/Programs Lists to one station’s Public File, and six missing Issues/Programs Lists to the other station’s Public File.  The licensee subsequently amended its license renewal applications to change the certification regarding timely Public Inspection File uploads from “yes” to “no.”

A staff review found that during the license term, one station had a total of six late Issues/Programs Lists during the license term (five of which were entirely missing until July 2025), and the other station had a total of seven late uploads (six of which were entirely missing until July 2025).  To resolve the matter, the licensee entered into the Consent Decree in which it admitted the facts surrounding the violations and agreed to implement new policies and procedures to prevent a recurrence.  These include designating a compliance officer, creating formal operating procedures to prevent future violations, drafting a compliance manual and distributing it to relevant employees, and conducting regular employee compliance training.

The licensee also agreed to report to the FCC within ten business days of discovery any violation of the Public Inspection File rule or the terms of the Consent Decree during the next two years.  Finally, it agreed to make a $6,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.  In return, the Media Bureau agreed to grant the stations’ license renewal applications, but conditioned the grants on receipt of the $6,000 payment.

Hawaii FM Station Receives Notice of Violation for Spurious Emissions

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the licensee of an FM radio station in Hawaii for generating spurious emissions at its transmitter site.  Spurious emissions occur when unintended radio frequency signals are generated outside a station’s assigned bandwidth.  These have the potential to cause harmful interference to other licensed users.

According to the NOV, the FCC’s Honolulu field office received a complaint from the Federal Aviation Administration, leading to an FCC field agent monitoring the FM station’s transmissions on May 14, 2025.  The agent observed signals emanating from the station’s transmitter site that were outside its licensed frequency and which were above the allowable limit under Section 73.317(d) of the FCC’s Rules.  These spurious emissions should have been attenuated by at least 80 dB compared to the station’s licensed transmissions, but the agent found that the spurious emissions far exceeded that level. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As noted yesterday, the FCC announced in a robocall proceeding that all individuals and entities that have a Federal Registration Number (FRN) in the FCC’s CORES database are now required to update it within ten business days of any change in the associated information. In the underlying Order, the FCC stated its reasons for doing so in relation to the Robocall Mitigation Database, which is one of the systems that automatically incorporates FRN information:

Requiring Filers to Update Information in CORES
To ensure that the Robocall Mitigation Database reflects up-to-date information, we adopt our proposal in the Notice that all entities and individuals that register in CORES in order to submit filings to the Database or that register for any other purpose be required to update any information submitted to CORES within 10 business days of any change to that information.

The FCC then made clear that its use of the phase “all entities and individuals that register in CORES” wasn’t accidental:

Additionally, keeping information in CORES up to date may have benefits outside the robocall proceeding as well. As we stated in the Notice, this procedural improvement will also benefit other Commission databases beyond the Database that make use of contact information imported from CORES. We therefore implement a 10-business day deadline for all CORES registrants to submit updates after a change in information occurs.

In that same Order, the FCC also established base fines for (a) misrepresenting such information and (b) failing to keep such information up to date:

We agree with commenters that inadvertent errors or minor lapses in compliance should not result in the same penalties as willful misconduct. We therefore find that the base forfeiture should be significantly lower than the $10,000 base forfeiture we set for submitting false or inaccurate information. That said, we agree with commenters who point out that inaccurate information in the Robocall Mitigation Database is still harmful—regardless of whether the inaccuracy results from malfeasance or neglect. Finally, we look to the penalties assessed in similar circumstances and note that the Commission has already established a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records. A base forfeiture in the amount of $1,000 in this instance creates a meaningful distinction between willful/malicious misconduct and inadvertent error. We find that a separate penalty for failure to update information in the RMD after a change has occurred is a necessary addition in order to ensure that filers make accuracy a priority. Finally, we hold that the integrity of the data in the RMD is no less critical than other records that licensees/authorization holders must maintain; accordingly, we apply a penalty, consistent with the fines applied in analogous circumstances. We therefore adopt a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to update Database information within 10 business days.

Like the earlier aspect of the Order that focused entirely on FRNs in the robocall context, but then proceeded to apply a new 10-business-day requirement to all FRN holders, the language above, while focused on robocalling, seems to suggest that the FCC believes a $1,000 a day base fine is appropriate for all such inadvertent failures to update information. Supporting this view is the Order’s assertions that such a fine amount is based on “penalties assessed in similar circumstances” and the fact “that the Commission has already established a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records,” citing only on an FM radio decision to support both propositions.

Communications lawyers around DC, particularly those with broadcast clients, were alarmed by both the universally-applicable 10-business-day deadline to update FRNs, and the Commission’s suggestion that a $1,000 a day base fine seemed appropriate given the “analogous circumstances” of an FM radio decision. Adding to that concern was the fact that the cited FM radio decision involved a “failure to maintain required records” where—surprise—the FCC’s base fine is $1,000. Of course, that doesn’t mean the FCC would fine broadcasters with outdated FRNs $1,000 a day until their FRN is updated, but it certainly suggests they could.

Bulletins and alerts went out to clients from their DC law firms warning of the new 10-day requirement and the potential for fines for those failing to meet that deadline. FCC regulatees rushed to update their FRNs today, only to be frustrated when the sheer amount of resulting traffic crashed the FCC’s systems, preventing such updates from being filed.

Seemingly in response, late today the FCC released a Public Notice with the exciting title Wireline Competition Bureau Reminds Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) Filers of Increased Base Forfeitures for Submitting False or Inaccurate Information and for Failure to Update RMD Filings. Not something a broadcaster or any other FCC licensee uninterested in robocall matters would typically read, but if there is anything to be learned from this episode, it is to read past the title of an FCC robocall document.

Those that did were rewarded in the second to last sentence which, to the FCC’s credit, was bolded and underlined, stating:

The Robocall Mitigation Database Report and Order did not address or change any forfeiture amounts that may be associated with failures to update the CORES information by non-RMD filers.

So it doesn’t say there won’t be fines associated with failures by those outside the robocall world to update their FRN information within 10 business days, but it at least states that the Order didn’t “address or change” those fines. We’ll call that a win. Still, I can’t help but wonder—if an FM radio station’s “failure to maintain required records” is “analogous” to a telecom provider’s failure to keep its contact information up to date in the Robocaller Mitigation Database, doesn’t that analogy run the other direction as well?

Published on:

By

Let’s state the obvious. The FCC’s use of mandatory Federal Registration Numbers was a bad idea from the start. It became monumentally worse today, when the FCC quietly announced that failure to update Federal Registration Number contact information within 10 business days of a change could trigger a $1,000 per day fine until it is updated, up to the current statutory maximum of $628,305.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

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

  • Satellite Communications Company Resolves Team Telecom Agreement Violations Through $175,000 Consent Decree
  • Michigan AM Station Cited for Tower and Other Violations
  • Five LPFM Applications Dismissed for Failing to Meet Localism Requirements

$175,000 Consent Decree for Satellite Communications Company’s Team Telecom Compliance Failures

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a provider of satellite communications services to resolve an investigation into violations involving its international Section 214 and earth station authorizations.  The Consent Decree represents the first time a grantee has agreed to a financial penalty for violating a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.

Grant of the authorizations had been expressly conditioned on the company’s ongoing compliance with a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.  Team Telecom is an interagency group led by the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Homeland Security, and Defense.  It reviews foreign involvement in U.S. telecommunications transactions for national security and law enforcement concerns.  When Team Telecom identifies potential risks resulting from foreign involvement in a proposed transaction, it may recommend that the FCC not approve the transaction, or enter into a mitigation agreement with the applicant designed to ameliorate those concerns.

Where an applicant enters into a mitigation agreement, Team Telecom will typically inform the FCC that it does not object to the proposed transaction so long as the approval is conditioned upon continuing compliance with the mitigation agreement. The FCC then makes an independent decision as to whether to grant the requested authorization, but tends to defer to Team Telecom’s judgment regarding matters of foreign involvement, including as to whether the grant should be conditioned on compliance with a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.

The investigation at the core of this Consent Decree stemmed from a May 2024 referral by the DOJ, which received a notification from the company requesting approval to permit several foreign employees to have access to the company’s U.S. communications infrastructure and customer information.  The mitigation agreement required that the company submit foreign employee access requests to DOJ at least 30 days prior to permitting access.  The DOJ’s review of this request led to a finding that the company had already provided access to numerous foreign employees without first notifying the DOJ.

After the DOJ referred the alleged violation to the FCC, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau commenced an investigation which concluded that the company had failed to notify the DOJ before giving 186 foreign employees access to the company’s U.S. communications infrastructure and customer information.  The FCC concluded that the failure stemmed from the company’s inadequate screening procedures.  Although all 186 employees were later cleared by the DOJ, the requests were submitted only after the investigation commenced.

To resolve the matter, the company entered into a Consent Decree in which it admitted the facts surrounding the violations and agreed to implement new policies and procedures to prevent a recurrence.  These include designating a compliance officer, creating formal operating procedures to prevent future violations, distributing a compliance manual to relevant staff, and conducting regular employee compliance training.  The company also agreed to submit regular compliance reports to the FCC over the next three years and promptly notify the FCC of any future violations.  Finally, it agreed to make a $175,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.

FCC Issues Notice of Violation to Michigan AM Station for Multiple Tower and Other Rule Violations

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the owner of a Michigan AM radio station for multiple rule violations.  The NOV notes that agents from the FCC’s Columbia and Chicago field offices had inspected the radio station and tower sites on two separate days in February 2025 and once again in September 2025, finding multiple rule violations. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a not all that surprising development for those who monitor Chairman Carr’s pronouncements, the FCC’s Media Bureau today released a “Guidance on Political Equal Opportunities Requirement for Broadcast Television Stations” narrowing the programs found exempt from the Equal Opportunities requirement. The clear target is appearances by candidates on the TV broadcast networks’ morning and late night interview programs. Tellingly, while the Equal Opportunities requirement applies to both radio and TV stations, today’s Public Notice containing the guidance is directed only at “Broadcast Television Stations” (see the title above).

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

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

  • FCC Issues Notice to Virginia Property Owner Over Pirate Radio Activity
  • Public Media Organization Enters into $86,400 Consent Decree Over False EAS Tones
  • Media Bureau Finds Broadcaster Did Not Violate Good Faith Negotiation Rules

FCC Warns Landowner Over Unauthorized Broadcasts on Its Property

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to a Virginia property owner in Williamsburg, VA.  The Enforcement Bureau’s Columbia Office investigated the property after receiving a complaint about unlicensed FM broadcasts on 99.5 MHz.  On two separate occasions, April 1 and July 17, 2025, agents used direction-finding equipment to confirm that the transmissions were emanating from a restaurant located on the property.

FCC records indicated that no license had been issued for a broadcast station operating on 99.5 MHz at that location.  The Enforcement Bureau also determined that the transmissions exceeded the power limits permitted for unlicensed operation under Part 15 of its Rules.

Under the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement Act (the PIRATE Act), the FCC has the authority to impose substantial fines not only on the individuals directly responsible for unauthorized broadcasting, but also on property owners who knowingly and willfully allow such activity to take place on their premises.  The Notice warned the property owner that it could face penalties of up to $2,453,218 if the FCC determined that it continued to permit unauthorized pirate radio broadcasts from its property.

The Notice directs the property owner to respond to the FCC within ten business days and provide evidence that the unlicensed pirate radio broadcasts have ceased.  The Notice also requires the property owner to identify the individual(s) responsible for the pirate operation.  Finally, the Notice informs the property owner that a failure to respond may be treated as evidence of knowledge and consent to the illegal broadcasts for purposes of initiating subsequent FCC enforcement proceedings involving “significant financial penalties” against the landowner.

Public Media Organization Resolves False EAS Tone Violations With $86,400 Consent Decree

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a public media organization to resolve an investigation into the unauthorized transmission of Emergency Alert System (EAS) tones.  According to the Consent Decree, the organization distributed a program that included actual or simulated EAS tones to its 46 owned radio stations and approximately 500 affiliated stations, triggering violations of Sections 11.31 and 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules.  The Consent Decree includes an $86,400 civil penalty and a multi-part compliance plan.

The EAS is a national public warning system designed to deliver critical emergency information to the public, including weather alerts and AMBER alerts.  To preserve the integrity of emergency alerts, EAS tones may only be aired for specific uses, such as actual emergencies, authorized tests, and qualifying public service announcements (PSAs).  Section 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules strictly prohibits airing EAS tones or simulations thereof unless they are aired in connection with one of these uses.  The concern is that misuse of EAS tones will lead to accidental system triggers or the public becoming desensitized to the alert tones in an actual emergency, both of which threaten the effectiveness of the alerting system. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

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

  • FCC Extends Consent Decree After New “Issues” Arise
  • FCC Resolves Pirate Radio Investigation With 20-Year Consent Decree
  • Spurious Emissions Lead to Notice of Violation for FM Translator Licensee

Order Extends Consent Decree Obligations Through 2029

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau recently released an Order amending a 2024 Consent Decree with a nationwide business communications company extending the company’s compliance obligations by an additional year.  Under the amended terms, the company will now be required to file compliance reports through 2029 and report any noncompliance with the FCC’s rules or the Consent Decree during the now extended term within 15 days of discovery.  The Order did not assess any new fines, but incorporated the extended reporting period and updated several provisions of the original Consent Decree.  The FCC did not elaborate on the reasons it deemed the extension necessary, stating only that it was done “to resolve issues arising after adoption and release of the Consent Decree.”

As we discussed here in April 2024, the company agreed to the original Consent Decree to resolve an FCC investigation into its unauthorized control and operation of multiple private business radio licenses.  The investigation stemmed from the company’s acquisition of entities holding FCC licenses without prior FCC approval, along with continued operations under expired or improperly transferred authorizations.  To resolve the investigation, the company agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty, implement a multi-year compliance plan, and submit annual compliance reports to the FCC for four years.  Due to the additional “issues,” the four-year compliance plan is now a five-year compliance plan.

The important takeaway from this proceeding is that a consent decree does not mark the end of an investigatory encounter with the FCC, but is merely a waypoint.  The penalty for a repeated offense while the consent decree is still in effect can be substantial.  In addition, most consent decrees require the alleged violator to promptly report any new violations to the FCC, greatly increasing the likelihood that new violations will come to light (and of course concealing violations that a consent decree requires be promptly reported ramps up the risk of severe FCC enforcement action considerably).  So those who sign a consent decree thinking the worst is behind them need to make a concerted effort to ensure that there are no future violations as well, particularly during the term of the consent decree.  The enforcement process does not end when the “voluntary contribution” payment is made under a consent decree.  It continues quietly, through compliance reports, follow-up reviews, and, when needed, renewed enforcement action.

Massachusetts Pirate Radio Operator Agrees to Lengthy 20-Year Consent Decree

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has entered into a Consent Decree with an individual operating a pirate radio station in Massachusetts.  Pirate radio operations are illegal under the Communications Act of 1934 and can interfere with licensed communications, posing a danger to the public by interfering with licensed stations carrying public safety messages, including Emergency Alert System transmissions.

The Consent Decree follows the FCC’s issuance of a $40,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in April 2024 for operating an unauthorized FM broadcast station without a license.  In the NAL, the FCC found that the individual had twice violated the FCC’s Rules, on June 6 and July 11, 2023, by operating an unauthorized radio station.  Under Section 511 of the Communications Act, the FCC may impose a fine against any person “who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any pirate radio broadcasting.” Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

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

FCC Enforcement Monitor—The Government Shutdown Edition
While shutdowns of the federal government have become depressingly common, the FCC has generally been less affected than most government agencies because it is not funded by taxpayer dollars but by regulatory fees paid by broadcasters and others regulated by the FCC. However, because the FCC collects those fees in arrears—at the end of the fiscal year they fund rather than the beginning—the FCC must borrow operating funds from the federal government to operate and then repay that debt when regulatory fees are collected at the end of the fiscal year. That is the reason the FCC is never able to extend its regulatory fee collection deadline beyond September 30, the last day of the federal fiscal year.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

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

  • $7,000 Consent Decree for National Cell Phone Provider Marketing Unauthorized Smartphone
  • FCC Pursues Missouri Property Owners Over Pirate Radio Broadcasts
  • New Hampshire AM Station Gets Notice of Violation for Failing to Air Station IDs

FCC Settles Investigation Into Marketing of Unauthorized Smartphone

A national wireless provider entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau for marketing a smartphone in the United States prior to receiving equipment authorization for it from the Commission.  The phone was announced and marketing of it commenced on May 14, 2024.  The provider advertised and otherwise marketed the phone for over a week until it was made available for purchase on May 23, 2024.  The phone received an FCC equipment authorization on May 29, 2024.  During that two-week period, thousands of phones were sold to consumers in violation of the FCC’s equipment marketing rules.

Section 302(b) of the Communications Act and Section 2.803(b) of the FCC’s Rules prohibit marketing or importing radio frequency devices prior to receiving equipment authorization by the FCC.  “Marketing” includes selling, leasing, offering for sale or lease, advertising for sale or lease, importing, shipping, or distributing the device for sale or lease.  Sections 2.1203 and 2.1204 of the FCC’s Rules require radio frequency devices to receive equipment authorization approval prior to importation into the U.S. unless the device qualifies for an exemption and complies with the FCC’s applicable technical and administrative requirements.

In October 2024, the FCC sent a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to the provider requesting information about the marketing of the smartphone and seeking information regarding compliance with the FCC’s import restrictions.  The provider timely responded to the LOI, explaining that it typically “relies on manufacturers to ensure that FCC equipment authorization procedures are met” and citing its contractual terms with the manufacturer regarding authorization prior to delivery.  The FCC determined, however, that those contractual references were insufficient to avoid a violation of its import rules.

To resolve the matter, the provider entered into a Consent Decree with the Enforcement Bureau under which it agreed to implement a Compliance Plan and make a $7,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.  The Consent Decree requires the provider to designate a compliance officer, implement a multi-part Compliance Plan, file annual compliance reports with the Commission for the next three years, and verify that all devices have proper FCC authorization (or qualify for an exemption) prior to accepting delivery of them.

Missouri Property Owners Warned Over Illegal Radio Broadcasts

The Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting (Notice) to two property owners in Boonville, Missouri.  The Enforcement Bureau’s Columbia Office investigated the property after receiving a complaint about unlicensed operation.  The agents confirmed, using direction-finding techniques, that unauthorized transmissions were emanating from the property on two separate occasions: December 18, 2024, and August 21, 2025.

FCC records indicated that no license had been issued for a broadcast station at that location, and the Enforcement Bureau determined that exemptions for extremely low-powered devices also did not apply. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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

  • Low Power FM Licensee Cedes De Facto Station Control Through Contract
  • Pirate Radio Station Operator Arrested During Live Broadcast
  • Northeast Property Owners Warned Over Illegal Radio Broadcasts

Short-Term License Renewal and $2,000 Consent Decree for LPFM Control Violation

The FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of a North Carolina low power FM (LPFM) station to resolve an investigation into whether the licensee violated Section 310(d) of the Communications Act and Section 73.865 of the FCC’s Rules.  Under those provisions, an LPFM station cannot be transferred or assigned to another party without the FCC’s prior consent.

To determine whether control of a broadcast station has transferred, the FCC considers “actual or legal control, direct or indirect control, negative or affirmative control, and de facto as well as de jure control.”  An analysis of de facto control looks at the exercise of control over a station’s programming, personnel, and finances, among other things.  Surrendering control over these matters to another person transfers de facto control of the station.

Following receipt of a complaint alleging the station’s former licensee was controlling the station pursuant to a local marketing agreement, the FCC conducted an investigation.  It concluded that the current licensee had ceded control of the station to the former licensee by entering into an agreement that gave the former licensee “sole right and privilege to determine the selection of programs” and required the station to “broadcast the provided programming, in its entirety, as delivered by [the former licensee] without any editing, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.”  Broadcast licensees are not allowed to convey such unfettered control over a station’s programming to another party. Continue reading →