Articles Posted in Telecommunications

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:

  • Massachusetts Man Ordered to Cease Using Interfering Home TV Antenna
  • Unauthorized Transfers of Arkansas Radio Stations Lead to $8,000 Consent Decree
  • STIR/SHAKEN Rule Violations End With $1,000,000 Consent Decree

Interference From Home TV Antenna Moves FCC to Action

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau recently issued a Notification of Harmful Interference (Notification) directing a Massachusetts man to cease using an indoor digital TV antenna in his home.

Over a two-day period in April 2024, an agent of the FCC’s Boston field office investigated an interference complaint.  The agent determined that unauthorized radio emissions in the 813-817 MHz band were interfering with the Massachusetts State Police public safety communications system.  The agent ultimately tracked the interference to an indoor digital TV antenna located in a condominium.  His suspicions were confirmed when the interference ceased after the device was unplugged.

The Communications Act of 1934 requires devices operating on certain frequencies, including the 800 MHz band, to be licensed by the FCC.  Section 15.5(b) of the FCC’s Rules creates a limited exception to this restriction for low power devices where no harmful interference is caused.  Section 15.3(m) defines harmful interference as “[a]ny emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service….”

In September 2024, the Bureau sent a Notification warning to the condominium owner that the TV antenna was causing harmful interference in violation of FCC rules, and should he continue to operate it, he would be subject to severe penalties, including fines, seizure of the equipment, or even imprisonment.

The Notification directed the resident to respond to the FCC within 10 days to describe his operation of the antenna and the steps being taken to ensure no further interference is caused.  The FCC indicated it would then determine what enforcement action is warranted to ensure no future violations occur.

Unauthorized Transfers of Control of Arkansas Radio Stations Net $8,000 Consent Decree

The licensee of an AM station and three FM stations in Arkansas failed to obtain required FCC approvals before transferring the licensee’s voting stock from one trust to another, and then transferring a 50% controlling interest in the licensee from the second trust to an individual.  To resolve the investigation, the licensee entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC’s Media Bureau which required, among other things, payment of an $8,000 civil penalty. 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:

  • Failure to Pay Annual Regulatory Fees Trips Up Texas AM Radio Licensee
  • Communications Provider for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumers Resolves Investigation with Multimillion Dollar Consent Decree
  • Investigation into Unauthorized Transfer of Control of Colorado Radio Stations Leads to $3,400 Fine

License of Texas AM Station Could Be Revoked If Regulatory Fees Remain Unpaid

The licensee of a Texas AM station must either pay its overdue regulatory fees or demonstrate why the fees are inapplicable or should be waived or deferred.  According to the Federal Communications Commission’s records, the radio station currently owes unpaid regulatory fees exceeding $3,000.  The fees were originally due on September 30, 2022, and the outstanding amount continues to accrue interest and other charges until it is paid in full.

Under Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 1.1151 of the FCC’s Rules, the FCC has the authority to assess annual fees to cover its operational costs.  These fees are typically due in late September to ensure the agency is fully funded at the start of the federal government’s fiscal year in October.  Late payment of these fees incurs a 25% penalty plus interest.  If licensees fail to pay regulatory fees and any penalties or interest, the FCC may revoke their affected licenses and other authorizations.

Prior to issuing an Order to Pay or to Show Cause, the FCC sent a demand letter to the licensee.  When payment was not received, the Commission transferred the debt to the U.S. Department of Treasury.  Subsequently, the FCC requested the return of the matter from the Treasury Department in order to pursue further collection efforts.

The Order demands that within 60 days the licensee either pay the full outstanding debt or demonstrate why the fee is inapplicable or should be waived or deferred.  The Media Bureau noted in the Order that failing to provide evidence of payment or to demonstrate why the fee isn’t applicable by the 60-day deadline could result in revocation of the station’s license. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

On July 24, 2024, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released a decision in Consumers’ Research et al. v. FCC holding that the Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Fund (“USF”) contribution mechanism violates Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution and remanded the issue to the FCC for further proceedings.  The case stems from petitioner’s constitutional challenge of the First Quarter 2022 USF contribution amount.  The court explained that (1) USF contributions are a tax; (2) Congress may have improperly delegated the legislative power to tax to the FCC without any intelligible guiding principles; (3) the FCC, in turn, may have impermissibly delegated taxing power to private entities; and (4) even absent a definitive answer on these delegation questions, the combination of Congress’s broad delegation and the FCC’s sub-delegation to private entities “certainly amounts to a constitutional violation.”  The 9-7 decision reverses a March 2023 three-judge panel decision and creates a circuit split with the DC, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, which rejected similar arguments in July 2012, May 2023, December 2024, respectively. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Chairwoman Rosenworcel announced on July 16 that the Commission is considering adoption of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on proposals to regulate AI-generated robocalls. The draft NPRM, released this afternoon, is the outgrowth of a November 2023 Notice of Inquiry and follows several recent FCC actions intended to mitigate the potential for bad actors to use AI technology in robocalls to mislead consumers. Over the last year, the FCC (1) has declared that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) restrictions on the use of “artificial or prerecorded voices” apply to AI-generated voices; (2) proposed a multimillion dollar fine against a person suspected of causing illegal robocalls that used a voice artificially created to sound like President Biden; and (3) sent letters to major U.S. telecommunications companies requesting information about their efforts to prevent illegal robocalls that use AI technology from reaching customers. Separately, the FCC is also considering whether to adopt disclosure requirements for political advertising that uses AI-generated content.

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 Six Notices of Apparent Liability to Pirate Radio Operators Across Massachusetts
  • Affordable Connectivity Program Provider Faces $8 Million Fine and Removal from the Program
  • FCC Proposes $3,000 Fine Against Massachusetts Class A Television Station for Public File Issues

FCC Targets Pirate Radio Operators in the Boston Area

The Communications Act prohibits the transmission of radio signals without prior FCC authorization because such signals can interfere with licensed communications and pose a danger to the public by interfering with licensed stations that carry public safety messages, including Emergency Alert System transmissions.  Over the past few years, the FCC has been focusing more attention on the owners and operators of illegal broadcast radio (colloquially known as “pirate radio”) facilities, targeting several in New York (as we discussed here and here) and Florida (as discussed here).  Last month, it issued six Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) proposing fines against Massachusetts pirate radio operators under the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement Act (PIRATE Act).  The PIRATE Act gave the FCC enhanced enforcement authority against radio pirates and has led to the recent increase in such fines.

In the Massachusetts NALs, the FCC proposed fines of $597,775, $120,000, $40,000, $40,000, $40,000, and $20,000, respectively, against the six pirate radio operators.

With regard to the largest proposed fine—$597,775—the FCC noted in the NAL that the facility’s owner had a long history of unauthorized operation.  In 2004, FCC field agents traced radio transmissions to a residence in Randolph, MA.  The transmissions exceeded the power limits for operation under Part 15 of the FCC’s Rules, which permits use of certain low power radio frequency devices without an FCC license.

Over the years, FCC field agents issued verbal and written warnings to cease pirate operations, but the self-admitted owner/operator repeatedly failed to do so.  In early 2005, agents found him to be transmitting above the Part 15 power limits, resulting in a $10,000 fine in 2006.  In 2017, acting on a complaint, FCC agents took field strength measurements of a new signal connected with the same operator and found it also exceeded the limits for unlicensed operation, resulting in the agents issuing an on-scene Notice of Unlicensed Operation.

Then, over the course of five days during June and July 2023, agents traced unauthorized radio transmissions to three locations in Brockton, Mattapan, and Randolph, MA.  After taking field strength measurements, the agents determined that all three facilities exceeded the power limits for operation under Part 15 of the FCC’s Rules.  Further investigation confirmed no authorizations had been issued for operation of an FM broadcast station at or near any of the three locations, and that the same owner/operator was connected to all three pirate sites.

In the NAL against this operator, the FCC concluded that he willfully and knowingly violated the Communications Act by operating a pirate radio station, and proposed the base fine for pirate operation ($20,000) for each of the five days of observed illegal activity, which would have resulted in a total proposed fine of $100,000.  Given the operator’s history of warnings and prior violations, however, the FCC found that an upward adjustment was warranted, and it proposed the maximum permissible penalty—$119,555—for each of the five instances of operation, leading to a proposed total fine of $597,775.  The operator has thirty days to either pay the fine or file a request presenting grounds for its reduction or cancellation.

FCC Alleges Wireless Company Violated Affordable Connectivity Program Rules and Federal Wire Fraud Statute

The FCC issued an NAL and Order Initiating Removal Proceeding to a wireless company and its principal for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating the FCC’s Rules for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) and the federal wire fraud statute.  The NAL proposes an $8,083,992 joint fine against the company and its principal. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

On April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor published final regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) that ultimately raise the minimum salary necessary to be exempt from federal overtime rules by 65%. These changes affect all businesses subject to the FLSA, but broadcasters and other media employers may particularly feel the impact given that they rarely operate on a 9am-to-5pm schedule. The increase will occur in two steps, with the first going into effect on July 1, 2024, and the second occurring on January 1, 2025. While these increases are certain to be challenged in court, the outcome of any appeals is difficult to predict. Employers need to prepare now to adapt to minimize the impact of these changes on their operations.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is the federal law governing wage and hour requirements for employees. Pursuant to the FLSA, employers must pay employees a minimum wage and compensate them for overtime at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for any time worked exceeding 40 hours in a workweek unless those employees are exempt from that requirement. On April 23, 2024, the Department of Labor issued a Final Rule that increases the minimum salary required for certain types of employees to be exempt from the FLSA’s overtime rules and changes the methodology that will be used to determine the applicable salary thresholds in the future. As a result, many currently exempt employees whose salaries are below the new thresholds will soon become eligible for overtime pay, requiring their employers to either increase those employees’ salaries to meet the new thresholds, or begin paying them overtime.

The Department of Labor projects the change will impact an estimated four million workers, with an additional direct cost to employers (from overtime pay and increases in salaries to maintain exempt status) of $1.5 billion.

Although the FLSA applies to most employers, the law contains exemptions for certain types of employees, including some at small-market broadcast stations. The Final Rule does not affect these broadcast industry-specific exemptions, but will affect many other currently exempt employees in the broadcast and media industry who, unless they receive salary raises, will soon become eligible for overtime pay.

This Advisory only addresses federal law. Some state laws impose stricter standards than federal law as to which employees are exempt from overtime pay. Employers must ensure that they also meet the requirements of any applicable state or local employment laws.

Overview

The FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt employees an overtime rate of 1.5 times their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 hours per workweek. However, the FLSA exempts from its overtime rules certain classes of employees who are paid on a salary basis and who also meet specific “white collar” duties tests. The Department of Labor’s Final Rule increases the minimum salary required for these classes of employees to be deemed exempt from the FLSA’s overtime rules, but does not alter the duties tests for those 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:

  • New Hampshire Presidential Primary Deepfake Robocalls Lead to Enforcement Action Against Call Originator
  • TV Broadcaster Faces $720,000 Fine for Failure to Negotiate Retransmission Consent in Good Faith
  • Statutory Maximum Penalty of $2,391,097 for Pirate Radio Operator

Telecommunications Company Accused of Originating Illegal Robocalls That Used President Biden’s Voice

A Michigan-based telecommunications company received a Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic (“Notice”) from the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau accusing it of originating illegal robocall traffic related to the New Hampshire Presidential Primary election.

Two days before voting began in the Primary, New Hampshire residents believed to be potential Democratic voters began receiving calls purportedly from President Joe Biden telling them to “save” their vote for the November general election and not vote in the Primary.  The caller ID information indicated the call came from the spouse of a former state Democratic Party chair who was running a super PAC urging state Democrats to write in President Biden’s name in the Primary.  The call was not authorized by President Biden or his campaign or an authorized committee, nor did it include a legitimate message from the president but instead was a so-called deepfake using the President’s voice.  The caller ID information was spoofed.

Following widespread news reporting of the calls, the FCC investigated the matter together with the New Hampshire Attorney General, the Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force and USTelecom’s Industry Traceback Group (“ITG”).  This group determined that the telecommunications company was the originating provider of the robocalls at issue, and the ITG provided identifying call data to the company for the suspect calls.  In response, the company identified another entity as the party that initiated the calls and told the ITG that it had warned the initiating entity as to the illegality of the calls.  According to the Notice, both the company and the apparent initiating entity have been previous subjects of illegal robocall investigations.

It is illegal under federal law to “knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value” and the law requires originating providers to protect their networks by taking “affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its network to originate illegal calls, including knowing its customers and exercising due diligence in ensuring that its services are not used to originate illegal traffic.”  Failure by a provider to protect its network can lead to downstream providers permanently blocking all of the upstream provider’s traffic.  In this case, the FCC believed the caller knowingly transmitted misleading and inaccurate caller ID information to deceive and confuse call recipients and apparently intended to harm prospective voters by using the President’s voice to tell them to not participate in the Primary.  The company also signed the calls with A-Level Attestation, an authentication designation that signals to downstream providers that the company has a direct relationship with the customer and that the customer legitimately controls the phone number in the caller ID field.

Transmittal of the Notice triggered several obligations for the company, including that it investigate the illegal traffic identified by the FCC and block or cease accepting all of the illegal traffic within 14 days of the Notice if the company’s investigation determines that it was part of the call chain for the identified traffic or substantially similar traffic.  Failure to respond to the Notice or to comply with additional obligations could result in temporary or permanent blocking of all traffic from the company, removal of the company from the Robocall Mitigation Database, which would cause all intermediate and terminating providers to immediately cease accepting the company’s telephone traffic, and more.  The FCC also issued a Public Notice notifying all U.S.-based voice service providers of the suspected illegal traffic coming from the company and authorizing the providers, at their discretion, to block or cease accepting traffic from the company without liability under the Communications Act of 1934 if the company failed to effectively mitigate the illegal calls. 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:

  • Mobile Service Provider Enters $23.5 Million Consent Decree to Resolve Lifeline and Emergency Broadband Benefit Program Investigation
  • Texas TV Station Receives $13,000 Penalty for Unauthorized Operation and Late License Application
  • Radio Station License Revoked Over Eight Years of Unpaid Regulatory Fees

Investigation Into Lifeline and Emergency Broadband Benefit Program Violations Leads to $23.5 Million Penalty for Mobile Phone Provider

A major mobile virtual network operator and mobile wireless telecommunications services provider entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) resolving an investigation into whether the provider violated the Commission’s rules for its Lifeline and/or Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) programs by claiming credit for subscribers that were ineligible for these programs.  These programs federally subsidize the cost of providing various services to qualifying subscribers.  The company provided Lifeline telephone service as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) and broadband internet access service under the EBB program.

The Bureau investigated whether the phone service provider (a) improperly sought and/or obtained Lifeline or EBB financial support from the government for ineligible subscribers, or failed to de-enroll subscribers who lacked eligibility documentation or whose applications were supported by falsified tax forms; (b) sought and/or obtained Lifeline support/EBB support for subscribers who didn’t use a Lifeline-supported/EBB-supported service; and (c) directly or indirectly compensated field enrollment representatives based on earning a commission, rather than being paid on an hourly basis.

Under the Commission’s Lifeline rules, ETCs must satisfy specific requirements to be eligible to receive federal Lifeline dollars, and may only receive such support “based on the number of actual qualifying low-income customers listed in the National Lifeline Accountability Database that the eligible telecommunications carrier serves directly as of the first of the month.”  Similarly, EBB providers may claim government financial support for providing discounted broadband internet access service during the emergency period of the EBB program based on the number of qualifying low-income households that the provider serves each month.

As part of these programs, participating providers were required to develop policies and procedures to ensure that their EBB households were indeed eligible to receive the discount benefit.  For example, two criteria for EBB qualification are whether the household income falls below a certain threshold or whether at least one member of the household has experienced a documented substantial loss in income during the emergency period.

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:

  • Seven-Figure Fine Imposed on Pirate Radio Brothers
  • $25,000 Fine Proposed for Kansas Radio Station EEO Rule Violations
  • Satellite Company Enters $150,000 Consent Decree for Orbital Debris

FCC Affirms Largest-Ever Pirate Radio Fine

The FCC affirmed a $2,316,034 fine against two brothers operating a pirate radio station in Queens, New York.  The penalty followed a March 2023 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), which we wrote about here.

In the NAL, the FCC set out the details of the brothers’ pirate radio activities, including that they had been illegally operating since 2008.  The Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement Act (known as the PIRATE Act and enacted in 2020) expanded the FCC’s authority to take enforcement action against radio pirates, and the fine proposed in March was the first issued under the FCC’s newly-expanded authority.  Illegal broadcast operations can interfere with licensed communications and pose a danger to the public by interfering with licensed stations that carry public safety messages, including Emergency Alert System transmissions.

In this case, the FCC’s investigation documented 184 days of pirate broadcasts.  With a $20,000 base fine for each willful and knowing violation, plus upward adjustments for intentional conduct and a history of rule violations, the FCC arrived at a fine of $21,307,568, but then reduced it to the statutory maximum of $2,316,034.  The brothers are jointly and severally liable for the fine, which means that each brother is responsible for paying the full fine and the FCC can recover the total fine from either brother or both.  Payment of the penalty is due within 30 days of the release date of the Forfeiture Order.

Kansas Radio Licensees Face $25,000 Fine for EEO Violations

Two related radio companies, licensees of a combined nine Kansas radio stations, received an NAL for various violations of the FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) rules.  The NAL proposed a $25,000 fine.

The FCC’s EEO rules prohibit broadcasters from discriminating in hiring on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or gender and, in many cases, require broadcasters to conduct and document broad job vacancy recruitment efforts.  The nine stations are run by the same two principals and operate as two Station Employment Units.  A Station Employment Unit (SEU) is a “a station or a group of commonly owned stations in the same market that share at least one employee.”  The FCC Enforcement Bureau’s investigation into the SEUs’ EEO compliance appears to have stemmed from the FCC’s processing of the stations’ license renewal applications, during which FCC staff reviews a station’s compliance with the FCC’s various rules throughout the station’s license term. 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:

  • FCC Proposes $116,156,250 Robocalling Fine for Over 20,000 Calls to Toll Free Numbers
  • Illinois Class A TV Station Pays Nearly Six-Figure Penalty for FCC Violations
  • FCC Proceeds with $4,000 Civil Penalty Against Alaska Broadcaster Following Investigation

Robocaller Fined Over $116 Million for TCPA Violations

The FCC issued a Forfeiture Order imposing a $116,156,250 penalty against one individual and three related companies (the Companies) for making 9,763,599 illegal robocalls to toll free numbers without the called party’s prior express consent.  The robocalls claimed to be a “Public Service Announcement” warning toll free customers about the dangers of illegal robocalls, and would repeat for up to ten hours unless the receiving party terminated the call.  This is one of the largest Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) robocall fines ever issued by the FCC.

As we discussed here, in July 2022 the FCC adopted a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NALF) in which it proposed a $116 million penalty.  The individual contested it, stating that he struggled to find anything in the NALF that is accurate, but offering no counterarguments to the FCC’s findings.  The individual asserted that he was not the party the FCC was after, that the calls were permissible because they were made in good faith, that he did not violate the TCPA “with intent” because he was purportedly advised by a lawyer that the robocalling operation did not violate the TCPA, and that the FCC should have issued a warning prior to releasing the NALF.

When the FCC assesses fines, it considers the “nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”  After fully considering the individual’s responses to the NALF, the FCC affirmed the fine, stating that it was in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the Act), Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, and the FCC’s Forfeiture Policy Statement (Forfeiture Policy).

The TCPA, Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Act, and Section 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) of the FCC’s Rules prohibit making prerecorded voice calls to numbers for which the called party is charged for the call (including toll free numbers) unless there is an emergency, or the recipient has given prior express consent to receive the call.  The FCC found that the Companies made 9,763,599 illegal robocalls to toll free numbers, and the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau (the Bureau) staff verified at least 20,650 of those calls were violations of the TCPA.

The FCC dismissed the individual’s ‘mistaken identity’ argument as meritless, explaining that its investigation identified the Companies as the source of the 20,650 verified robocalls.  In October 2020, an industry group tasked by the Bureau with tracing illegal robocalls alerted the Bureau that a caller was apparently targeting toll free services with robocalls.  The calls were traced to a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) which identified the sources of the calls as two of the Companies.  The CLEC supplied records showing that the individual signed a service agreement with the CLEC in July 2020 for several thousand direct inward dial telephone numbers and VoIP service.  Additionally, call records produced by the CLEC showed millions of calls to toll free numbers originating from the Companies’ account between January and March 2021.  The CLEC paid one of the Companies $0.0001 (one ten thousandth of a cent) for each minute of outbound calls that it made to toll free numbers.  The individual then used the revenue from the robocalls to fund telephone denial of service (TDoS) attacks against other companies. The individual offered no evidence to refute these findings, and the FCC concluded that the Companies made the calls identified in the NALF.

The FCC also dismissed the argument that the calls were permissible because the toll free customers receiving them were not charged for calls.  The FCC reviewed a number of the toll free service providers’ publicly available billing practices, and found that the providers do indeed charge their toll free customers on a per call basis or in bundles of minutes.  Thus, the robocalling scheme resulted in actual financial losses to the toll free customers receiving the calls.  Finally, the FCC explained that there is no “good faith” or “public safety doctrine” exception in the TCPA that would permit the calls, rejecting the individual’s claim that he “acted in good faith.”

Section 227(b)(4)(E) of the Act provides that the statute of limitations is four years (rather than one year) if the violation was committed “with the intent to cause such violation.”  In the NALF, the FCC stated that the Companies made prerecorded calls with the intent to violate the TCPA because the Companies (1) targeted protected toll free numbers; and (2) had no reasonable basis to believe they had consent for the calls.  The FCC noted that the individual’s response refuted neither of those findings, as he did not contest that he targeted toll free numbers, and merely argued that reliance on legal advice constituted a defense against liability.  The FCC disagreed, and cited the Companies’ complex calling scheme as further evidence of intentionality.

Despite the individual’s claim that he was entitled to a warning, the Commission noted that the TRACED Act allows the FCC to issue a Notice of Apparent Liability for violations of Section 227(b) of the Act without first issuing a warning citation.  The FCC affirmed its decision in the NALF, concluding that the $116,156,250 fine was warranted due to the Companies’ egregious conduct.  After considering the relevant factors and its Forfeiture Policy, the FCC found that the proposed base fine and upward adjustments applied in the NALF were consistent with the FCC’s rules.  The Commission therefore found the individual and Companies jointly and severally liable, and the $116,156,250 fine must be paid within 30 calendar days after the release of the Forfeiture Order.

Rule Violations by Illinois Class A TV Station Result in Consent Decree and $97,000 Penalty

In the course of processing the license renewal application of an Illinois Class A TV station, the FCC’s Media Bureau determined that (1) the license renewal application was filed nearly a month after the filing deadline; (2) the applicant certified that there had been no violations by the licensee of the Act or the rules or regulations of the FCC during the preceding license term; and (3) the applicant certified that all required documentation had been uploaded to the station’s Public Inspection File when required.  According to the Media Bureau, however, the licensee failed to timely upload 28 issues and programs lists, all of its records concerning commercial limits compliance in children’s programming, 23 children’s television programming reports, and copies of documents related to a 2014 forfeiture order issued to the licensee.

Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules lists the materials a Class A TV station must upload to its Public Inspection File and the deadlines for making those submissions.  Under Sections 73.3514(a) and 1.65(a) of the FCC’s Rules, applications filed with the FCC must include all information called for by the application form, and the applicant must ensure the continuing accuracy and completeness of its application by making any necessary amendments within 30 days of a response becoming inaccurate.

Continue reading →