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.
- The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the transfer of control of TEGNA to Nexstar Media. The transfer, which was consummated immediately after the grant, results in Nexstar owning 2 TV stations in 17 Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs) and more than 2 stations in 23 markets, as well as having a national audience reach of 54.5% of TV households. The Bureau granted Nexstar’s waiver of the 39% national TV ownership cap (which it found that it had the authority to do), citing the increased competition faced by broadcasters from other forms of media, including digital platforms, since the FCC last updated the cap over 20 years ago. The Bureau also found that Nexstar’s proposed duopolies complied with the FCC’s Local TV Ownership Rule as common ownership of 2 TV stations in a DMA is permitted in all cases following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit’s decision overturning the FCC’s prohibition on owning two of the Top 4 stations in any market (see our article here). The FCC also granted Nexstar’s requested waiver of the local TV ownership rule in the 23 markets where it owns more than 2 stations finding that, in the vast majority of those markets, the station combinations would strengthen competition by supporting weaker TV stations that will be owned by Nexstar, allowing their continued operation which might not be possible without support from the company’s more successful stations in those markets. Nexstar did, however, agree to divest stations in 6 markets within 2 years if the ownership rules prohibiting such combinations are still in place at that time.
- FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement criticizing the decision, stating that the approved transfer violates the national TV ownership cap and was “approved behind closed doors with no open process, no full Commission vote, and no transparency for the consumers and communities who will bear the consequences,” and that “the American public deserves to know how and why this decision was made.”
- Commissioner Gomez also released a statement in response to FCC Chairman Carr’s recent statements, which we noted last week, that broadcasters could lose their licenses for airing unfavorable coverage of the war in Iran. Gomez stated that the “FCC has vanishingly little power over national news networks” and noted that TV station licenses are not “up for renewal until 2028.” While Gomez characterized Carr’s statements as “grounded in neither reality nor law and would not survive judicial scrutiny,” she stated that “the concern over the chilling effect of these actions, however, is very real” and follow “a well-established pattern of threatened investigations, broadcast license revocations, and regulatory harassment aimed at pressuring broadcasters and their corporate parents to comply or capitulate in advance.”
- The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau granted a limited waiver of the FCC’s Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules to permit a group of Michigan radio and TV stations to operate without EAS equipment while the stations were moved to new facilities. The FCC’s rules require stations, when they are operational, to have EAS equipment installed and capable of sending and receiving EAS tests and messages. The Bureau granted the waiver noting that it was for a very short period during the station moves (up to 1 hour) and the licensee pledged not to proceed with the moves if there was a risk of an emergency event or if there was a planned EAS test on the move date. See our Broadcast Law Blog discussion here of similar waivers granted recently, noting that these decisions make clear that the FCC requires a waiver when fully functional EAS equipment is deactivated, even temporarily, while the Commission’s rules give stations 60 days without requiring FCC approval to repair EAS equipment that malfunctions.
- The FCC’s Media Bureau notified a Virginia FM station that its proposed community of license change from Gretna, Virginia to Brookneal, Virginia conflicted with the FCC’s community of license change policies. Several years ago, the station was licensed to Gretna but received a construction permit to move to Halifax, Virginia. Under Commission policy, a city of license change is effective when the construction permit is granted, even if the actual construction of the modified facilities has not yet occurred. In the interim, the station operates with an “implied STA” from its original facilities. While the licensee claimed that the city of license change was in the public interest because Brookneal would receive its first local service while Gretna (where the station is still operating) would continue receiving a first local service from another station, the Bureau found that the comparison should have been between Halifax and Brookneal, as the previously granted construction permit meant that the station was no longer licensed to Gretna. Even though the facilities to serve Halifax had never been constructed, the Bureau found that first local service at the larger community of Halifax was preferred over the first local service at the smaller community of Brookneal. Thus, it rejected the proposed city of license change, though it permitted the licensee to amend its proposal within 30 days in a manner that would comply with Commission policy.
- The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Virginia LPFM station to resolve its investigation into the station’s compliance with the FCC’s underwriting rules, which prohibit noncommercial stations, including LPFM stations, from airing commercial advertisements. The investigation arose from objections to the station’s license renewal application which made several allegations, including not only the underwriting issues, but also issues arising from a “co-op” agreement to which the licensee was a party, which allowed several LPFM stations to share facilities and commonly seek underwriting support. Questions were raised as to whether this agreement violated the FCC rule against LPFM stations having operating agreements with other full-power or low power stations. The Bureau concluded that, as the licensee’s agreement was with the co-op and not the licensees of the other stations, and as nothing showed that the co-op controlled the programming, personnel, or finances of the licensee, this arrangement did not violate the rule. But the Bureau promised to review any similar arrangements very carefully as it believed that this agreement was close to the line. However, finding that some of the “underwriting” on the station promoted rather than simply identified the station’s sponsors, the Consent Decree was adopted, requiring the station to implement a compliance plan to ensure the licensee’s future compliance with FCC rules. See our article here on the limits of permissible underwriting under FCC rules.
- The Media Bureau affirmed its July 2025 decision dismissing a Florida LPFM construction permit application based on objections that the applicant failed to meet the FCC’s LPFM localism requirement because the multiple addresses submitted by the applicant that could be its headquarters were all located more than 10 miles from the proposed station’s transmitter site (the limit for LPFM applicants within the top 50 urban markets). The applicant requested reinstatement of its application claiming that it met the LPFM localism requirement because it relocated its headquarters after it filed its application so that it was within the required 10-mile radius, which it disclosed in an amendment filed after the LPFM filing window closed. The Bureau rejected the applicant’s arguments, stating that an applicant must meet the localism requirement when its original application is filed, and noncompliance at the time of filing cannot be corrected by an amendment. While the applicant argued that the Bureau had previously accepted an amendment to another application to clarify the applicant’s educational purpose, that decision was rejected as being precedent for accepting an amendment in this case, as the other applicant was in compliance with the educational purpose obligation at the time of filing, and the accepted amendment merely clarified that compliance.
On our Broadcast Law Blog, we posted a two-part discussion of the legal risks of advertising or promotions using “March Madness,” “Final Four,” and other NCAA trademarks (see here and here) unless you have permission of the NCAA. We also published an article that highlighted some of the legal issues under state laws that can arise when artificial intelligence is used in political attack ads to create “deep fakes” or “synthetic media” of political candidates.