FCC Enforcement Monitor — FCC Proposes fines for contest violations; fine for unlicensed operation and interference; and more
By Paul A Cicelski and Carly A Deckelboim
Late last month, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) Enforcement Bureau issued two essentially identical notices of apparent liability for forfeiture (NALs) against two radio station licensees for failure to conduct a contest as advertised. Although the stations have different licensees, one licensee provided programming to the second licensee’s station through a time brokerage agreement. The brokering station’s response to a letter of inquiry (LOI) addressed both licensees’ actions with regard to the contest. In the subsequent NALs, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau proposed a $4,000 (£2,369) fine against the brokered licensee and an $8,000 fine against the brokering licensee.
In July of 2009, the FCC received a complaint that several radio stations held a weekly contest called ‘Par 3 Shoot Out’ but did not conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised. Specifically, the complaint maintained that at least one participant did not receive a promised prize of a golf hat and was not entered into a draw to win a car or other prizes (as was promised in the contest’s rules). About four months later, the FCC issued an LOI to the licensee conducting the contest about the claims made in the complaint. In its response to the LOI, the licensee conducting the contest indicated that the contest consisted of two phases. The first was an 18-week online golf competition where the highest-scoring contestant each week would win a hat from a golf club. Each weekly winner and one write-in contestant would be able to participate in the second phase of the contest, a real golf competition consisting of taking one shot at a three-par hole. As was publicised online, the prize for the winner of the second phase was a $350 golf store gift certificate, and if anyone hit a hole in one they would win a Lexus car…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury briefing.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Aurora Energy decision deems discharges prohibited, leaves open question of permit shield applicability
On 3 September 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Alaska Community Action on Toxics v Aurora Energy Services LLC.
Scaling back considerably from the October 2012 term, the US Supreme Court issued only a few rulings affecting environmental law during the October 2013 term.