This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters:  February 17, 2025 to February 21, 2025

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

• In an effort to exert more control over independent federal agencies, including the FCC, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing independent agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review before any action is published in the Federal Register.  “Significant regulatory actions” include actions which have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, adversely affect the economy or an economic sector, interfere or conflict with other federal agency actions, or raise new legal or policy issues.  The Order directs independent agency heads to coordinate policymaking with the White House, to set a strategic plan approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and to have their performance evaluated by the OMB.  The Order also states that the President and the Attorney General’s legal interpretations are controlling on the executive branch, and that no employee of an independent agency can provide any interpretation of law that contravenes the President or Attorney General’s position unless approved by the President or Attorney General.
• The Federal Trade Commission issued a request for public comment regarding “technology platform censorship.”  The FTC request seeks information on how technology platforms (including social media sites and many other internet-based services) may have engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices (which the FTC regulates) by, among other things, “shadow banning” or deemphasizing content based on a user’s speech or affiliations, and by regulating content in ways contrary to the platform’s public representations.  The request for comment asks that users provide information on how they were harmed by any such practices and on factors that may have contributed to platform’s decisions to act as it did.  In the FTC press release about the request for comments, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson stated that the inquiry will help the FTC understand “how these firms may have violated the law by silencing and intimidating Americans for speaking their minds.”  Comments are due May 21. 
• The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has scheduled an oral argument for April 7 on the NAB’s challenge to the FCC decision requiring broadcasters to investigate whether issue advertisers and others who buy spots that are not for commercial products or services are representatives of foreign governments. We summarized the FCC decision now on appeal on our Broadcast Law Blog, here.  As is the case with many other upcoming court arguments on appeals of decisions made by the last administration at the FCC, there is interest as to how the FCC will defend this appeal as Chairman Carr, as a commissioner, opposed the expansion of the rule to cover spot advertising, agreeing with arguments that the decision was done without sufficient notice that the expansion was being considered. 
• The Media and Democracy Project filed an Application for Review with the FCC of the Media Bureau’s dismissal of MDP’s petition to deny filed against the Fox’s Philadelphia station license renewal application.  As we discussed here, MDP argued in its petition that the station’s renewal should be denied principally because cable channel Fox News aired false statements regarding Dominion Voting Systems following the 2020 Presidential Election.  But in one of the last major actions of the FCC under former Chairwoman Rosenworcel, the Bureau dismissed MDP’s petition for reasons including that it provided no evidence that the station aired false information regarding Dominion.  MDP argues that the Bureau misapplied the law and FCC precedent and urges the FCC to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding Fox’s false statements.  The Bureau, under FCC Chairman Carr, reinstated complaints against TV stations owned by the ABC, NBC, and CBS broadcast networks for aspects of their coverage of the 2024 presidential campaign, but did not reinstate MDP’s complaint against the Fox-owned TV station (see our discussion here).
• The Center for American Rights filed a letter in the Paramount-Skydance merger proceeding urging the FCC to examine the company’s DEI efforts in its review of the company’s transfer applications, which propose that David Ellison acquire a controlling stake in the company and become its Chairman and CEO.  Noting Chairman Carr’s recent letter announcing an investigation of DEI initiatives (which we noted last week here), CAR argues that the FCC should scrutinize Paramount’s DEI initiatives because they may be “institutionalized illegal racial discrimination” that raise questions regarding the company’s fitness to hold FCC licenses.  CAR further argues that even if Paramount’s DEI practices are legal, they should be viewed as public interest violations – particularly where DEI-informed programming decisions fail to deliver “patriotic, family friendly, and faith-inspired” programming that conflicts with some viewer preferences.  See our updates here, here, here, here, and here on the transaction and the comments previously filed in this proceeding.
• The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Puerto Rico LPTV station to resolve its investigation into the station’s unauthorized operations.  The Bureau found that the station began operating on Channel 14 without submitting evidence that its operations would not interfere with land mobile facilities.  The station’s construction permit required that coordination with land mobile operators occur before the station could begin operating with program test authority (authority to conduct on-air programming of the station’s facilities while its license application is pending).  The Bureau found that the station engaged in unauthorized operations for over three years until it submitted an acceptable showing that there was no interference to land mobile facilities.  The Consent Decree requires that the station pay a civil penalty of $4,500 and enter into a compliance plan to ensure that future FCC rule violations do not occur.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we discussed the process by which SoundExchange can audit any webcaster who streams its programming online to assess compliance with the statutory music licenses provided by Sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act.  Our article was prompted by recent announcements by the Copyright Royal Board’s that SoundExchange is auditing the compliance of five radio companies.