Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Greater Boston Radio, Inc. Licensee of Station WMJX(FM)
Boston, Massachusetts ) ) ) ) ) ) File No.: EB-08-IH-5305 NAL/Account No.:
200932080039 FRN: 0005069802 Facility ID No.: 25052
Adopted: February 28, 2013 Released: February 28, 2013
By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Forfeiture Order, we assess a monetary forfeiture in the
amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against Greater Boston Radio,
Inc. (Licensee), licensee of Station WMJX(FM), Boston, Massachusetts
(Station), for its willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1216
of the Commission's rules concerning licensee-conducted contests.^ As
discussed below, the Licensee violated the contest rule by
broadcasting information about a contest without fully and accurately
disclosing all material terms thereof and by failing to conduct the
contest substantially as announced or advertised.
2. The Commission received a complaint in May 2008 (Complaint) alleging
that the Station failed to conduct a contest in accordance with the
contest's advertised terms and the Commission's rules.^ The
complainant alleged that contest promotions broadcast by the Station
stated that the contest winner would receive the winner's choice of
one of three new cars.^ The complainant was a preliminary winner who
received an initial cash prize, along with an automobile ignition
key.^ Only after qualifying for a chance to win the grand prize did
the Complainant learn that the prize to be awarded was not the
winner's choice of three available cars but, instead, a two-year lease
of the selected car. The complainant also learned at that time that
the winner had to qualify for credit with the car dealer supplying the
leased car as a (previously unannounced) condition of the Station
awarding the grand prize.^
3. After receiving the Complaint, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) sent a
letter of inquiry (LOI) to the Licensee, directing the Licensee to
provide information about the contest.^ The Licensee responded to the
LOI in March 2009 (LOI Response).^ In its LOI Response, the Licensee
identified the contest as the "Cool, Hot or Green" contest (Contest)
and explained the primary elements of the contest--that listeners were
to call into the Station at designated times in order to win a gas
card worth one hundred six dollars ($106) (representing the Station's
position on the FM dial - 106.7MHz), and a chance to win the grand
prize.^ The Station broadcast contest promotions stating that the
grand prize was the winner's choice of three different cars.^
4. The Licensee acknowledged that "while the Contest, as described on
air, made plain that the grand prize winner would be able to choose
from three different cars, only the complete rules of the Contest,
made available via the Station's website . . . spelled out that what
was being awarded was a two-year lease of the car chosen, and not
title to a car, and that the winner would have to be qualified for
credit by Prime Motor Group,"^ the Contest co-sponsor.^ ^ Moreover,
the Licensee admitted that "the Station's on-air announcements did not
directly refer listeners to the Station's website for complete contest
rules."^ Nevertheless, the Licensee asserted that its violation of the
Commission's rules was similar to that of the licensee in Kevin Cooney
(Cooney), and that the violation in this case therefore warranted no
greater sanction than an admonishment of the Licensee.^
5. On April 8, 2009, having fully considered these arguments, we issued a
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of
four thousand dollars ($4,000) to the Licensee. We found that it
broadcast information about the Contest without fully and accurately
disclosing all material terms thereof and failed to conduct the
contest substantially as announced or advertised, in violation of
Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules.^
6. On May 7, 2009, the Licensee filed a response to the NAL (NAL
Response).^ In the NAL Response, the Licensee does not dispute that
its conduct of the Contest violated Section 73.1216, but nevertheless
requests that the proposed forfeiture be cancelled or reduced to, at
most, an admonishment.^ As justification for this request, the
Licensee continues to primarily rely upon the decision in Cooney^ and
to argue that "[b]ecause [that case] is substantially similar to this
case, under the principles of Melody Music . . . the most severe
sanction appropriate here is an admonition."^ As noted above, in the
NAL the Bureau specifically considered and rejected the Licensee's
comparison of this case to Cooney,^ and we continue to do so here.
7. Section 73.1216, the Commission's rule concerning licensee-conducted
contests, provides that: "A licensee that broadcasts or advertises
information about a contest it conducts shall fully and accurately
disclose the material terms of the contest, and shall conduct the
contest substantially as announced or advertised. No contest
description shall be false, misleading or deceptive with respect to
any material term."^ Material terms under the rule "include those
factors which define the operation of the contest and which affect
participation therein[,]"^ and generally include, among other things,
instructions on "how to enter or participate; eligibility restrictions
. . . whether prizes can be won; when prizes can be won; the extent,
nature and value of prizes . . . [and] time and means of selection of
winners . . . ."^ Although a licensee has discretion in determining
the time and manner of disclosing a contest's material terms, and need
not enumerate the terms each time an announcement promoting a contest
is broadcast, "the obligation to disclose the material terms arises at
the time the audience is first told how to enter or participate [in
the contest] and continues thereafter."^ Finally, disclosure of
material terms must be made by announcements broadcast on the station;
non-broadcast disclosures of material terms can be made to supplement,
but not substitute for, broadcast announcements.^ The Licensee admits
the violation at issue here, and thus, the only issue that remains in
contention is the issuance of a forfeiture, as we assessed, versus an
admonishment, as the Licensee advocates.^
8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
Act),^ Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,^ and the Commission's
forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement.^
In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we
take into account 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 other
matters as justice may require.^ As discussed further below, we have
examined the Licensee's response to the NAL pursuant to the
aforementioned statutory factors, our rules, and the Forfeiture Policy
Statement, and in light of the conduct, our precedent, and the
Licensee's compliance history, we continue to find the base forfeiture
amount to be appropriate in this case.
A. Precedent Supports a Forfeiture in This Case.
1. The Bureau's Forfeiture Assessment Accords With Recent Precedent.
9. The Bureau's decision in this case is consistent with recent decisions
concerning Section 73.1216,^ especially the Bureau decision in ABC,
Inc.^ In ABC, two movie passes to the premier showing of the film
"Spiderman" were awarded as a contest prize.^ The station never
broadcast the fact that the award of the tickets did not guarantee
admission to the theater, but it did notify the contest winner by
telephone of that restriction when it awarded him the prize and when
it later gave him the tickets.^ When the winner was unable to attend
the "Spiderman" premier due to large crowds, the station offered him
tickets to another movie that night, gave him promotional items, and
purchased tickets for him to see "Spiderman" at a later date.^
However, the Bureau found that the failure of the station to broadcast
that the prize movie tickets did not guarantee admission to the
theater was a failure to broadcast a material term, and despite the
station's efforts to correct its failure, imposed a
four-thousand-dollar ($4,000) forfeiture for ABC's violation of the
Commission's contest rule.^ We find that the Licensee's failure to
broadcast the fact that the grand prize was a car lease - and only if
the winner qualified for it - rather than title to the car, as
listeners were lead to believe, is more serious than the violation
found in ABC.
2. Cooney Does Not Control the Outcome in This Case.
10. The Licensee continues to contend that Cooney, a Mass Media Bureau
letter in which no forfeiture was imposed, controls the outcome of
this case.^ In the NAL, we considered and rejected this argument.^ In
its NAL Response, the Licensee merely restates the arguments that we
previously rejected in the NAL.^ Despite the Licensee's persistence,
we continue to find that Cooney does not control the outcome in this
11. In Cooney, the complainant misunderstood the contest term "enter as
often as you like."^ According to the licensee in that case, the term
contemplated participation in various segments of the contest at
issue, but actually prohibited duplicate entries (like the
complainant's) from the same listener for the same music segment. The
Mass Media Bureau determined that this exclusion, which could have
been reasonably misunderstood, was a material term of the contest that
should have been announced by the Station. It then determined that the
overall circumstances of the case, which included consideration of the
Station's offer to compensate the complainant and to take steps to
assure accuracy in its contests, warranted an admonition.^ The
circumstances in the instant case, however, warrant a forfeiture.
Here, the Station never aired a complete description of each material
term in its over 300 Contest promotions,^ essentially broadcast a
false announcement of the grand prize rather than a vague one, failed
to broadcast anything clarifying what it would award, and instead
awarded something different than what it announced.^ In contrast, in
Cooney, the Station did announce material terms, except one term was
open to various interpretations, which the Mass Media Bureau
determined should have been better defined.^ As discussed in the NAL
and below, we find that the violation in the instant case is more
serious than the violation in Cooney, and the degree of departure in
this case from the contest rule warrants a stronger sanction than an
admonishment. Accordingly, we continue to reject the Licensee's
comparisons to Cooney.^
3. Melody Music Does Not Compel a Different Result.
12. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Licensee argues that, under the
principles of Melody Music, Inc. v. FCC (Melody Music), it should
receive, at most, an admonishment for its conduct.^ We reject this
argument. The Licensee's reliance on Melody Music is misplaced. First,
Melody Music addresses the particular burdens that the Commission must
meet in justifying its licensing decisions, not its enforcement
actions; while some enforcement actions include decisions on whether
to grant applications, this case does not.^ Moreover, as cases
following Melody Music have noted, the requirements of Melody Music do
not limit the Commission to previously assessed sanctions where there
are factual distinctions that warrant different treatment, and the
Commission has adequately explained such distinctions.^ Finally, the
Commission has broad discretion to consider a variety of factors in
determining an appropriate forfeiture amount, if warranted, when faced
with a violation of its rules.^ We note that egregiousness is one of
the factors under Section 1.80 of the rules that must be considered
when determining the degree of a sanction.^ With respect to these last
two points, we find that we have properly exercised our discretion and
adequately explained that the Licensee's factual situation was
different from cited precedent due to the egregiousness of the
B. The Gravity of the Violation Warrants a Forfeiture.
13. We note that the serious nature of the violation here justifies the
forfeiture that we proposed. In the NAL Response, the Licensee asserts
that the violation was "relatively minor" in nature^ and that "no
[C]ontest participant suffered any damages in reliance on his or her
misunderstanding of the rules."^ These contentions echo the arguments
that the Licensee put forward in its LOI Response.^ As we did in the
NAL, we continue to reject this position.^
14. As described above, the violation in this case was fundamental and
serious. The Licensee failed to accurately describe both the prize and
the conditions required to win that prize.^ Omitting or obscuring such
a fundamental Contest term as the Contest prize undermines the essence
of the contest rule, which is designed to ensure that listeners are
accurately informed of the material terms of the contest. Moreover, in
focusing on the listeners' "misunderstanding of the rules," the
Licensee appears to misunderstand its obligations. The burden is not
on the listener to surmise the nature of the prize--it is on the
Licensee to announce it.^ Indeed, we find the so-called
"misunderstandings" of Station listeners and Contest contestants to be
both reasonable and warranted because the Station's promotions were
fundamentally misleading. In claiming that no harm resulted from such
misleading behavior, the Licensee ignores its basic obligation to
prevent the broadcast of false, misleading or deceptive contest
announcements.^ Such a claim also ignores the likelihood that Contest
participants, such as the complainant, may have relied on the
announced grand prize, rather than the actual grand prize, to enter
the contest in the first instance and discounts the possibility of
damages from such reliance. Furthermore, the Licensee admits that some
of the qualifying contestants complained about the Station's
misleading advertisements,^ which indicates that they were indeed
harmed by the Licensee's conduct. Accordingly, we find these
contentions unpersuasive, as we have when addressing similar arguments
from other licensees.^
15. As a result of our review of the Licensee's response to the NAL, and
in view of the statutory factors and the Forfeiture Policy Statement,
we affirm the NAL and issue a forfeiture in the amount of four
thousand dollars ($4,000).^
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act,^ and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's
rules,^ Greater Boston Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE
in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willful violation
of Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules.^
17. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80 of the Rules by close of business on or before ten days
after the date of the entry of this Order.^ If the forfeiture is not
paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the U.S.
Department of Justice for enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to
Section 504(a) of the Act.^ Greater Boston Radio, Inc. shall send
electronic notification of payment to Judy Lancaster at
Judy.Lancaster@fcc.gov, Anjali K. Singh at Anjali.Singh@fcc.gov, and
Jeffrey J. Gee at Jeffrey.Gee@fcc.gov on the date said payment is
18. The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire
transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and
FRN referenced above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed
FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.^ When completing
the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
(payment type code). Below are additional instructions you should
follow based on the form of payment you select:
* Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
the Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the
completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
* Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete
the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
* Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
Louis, MO 63101.
19. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
to: Chief Financial Officer--Financial Operations, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554.^ If you have questions regarding payment
procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be
sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
to Greater Boston Radio, Inc., 35 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite
300, Braintree, Massachusetts 02184-8703, and to its counsel, Sally A.
Buckman and David S. Keir, Lerman Senter PLLC, 2000 K Street, NW,
Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20006-1809.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Theresa Z. Cavanaugh
Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division
^ 47 C.F.R. S 73.1216.
^ Complaint to Federal Communication Commission, IC No. 08-C00018081-1
(May 2, 2008) (on file in EB-08-IH-5305) (Complaint).
^ Id. at 3.
^ Letter from Rebecca Hirselj, Assistant Chief, Investigations and
Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Greater Boston Radio, Inc.
(Feb. 11, 2009) (on file in EB-08-IH-5305) (LOI).
^ Letter from David S. Keir, Esq., Lerman Senter PLLC, to Judy Lancaster,
Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement
Bureau (Mar. 20, 2009) (on file in EB-08-IH-5305) (LOI Response).
^ Id. at 2.
^ Id. at 2-3.
^ Id. at 3.
^ Id. at 2. The Station's announcements consistently described the grand
prize in the "Cool, Hot or Green" contest as "A Cool Mercedes Benz...A Hot
Audi TT Convertible...or a [Green] Toyota Prius Hybrid . . . from Prime
Auto Group . . . No fine print gimmicks . . . on line at Driveprime.com!"
Id. at Exh. 2.
^ Id. at 6-7 (citing Kevin Cooney, Letter of Admonition, 5 FCC Rcd 7105
(Mass Med. Bur. 1990) (Cooney)).
^ Greater Boston Radio, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 4103, 4106, para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (NAL).
^ Letter and Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture from
Sally A. Buckman and David S. Kier, Attorneys, Lerman Senter PLLC, to
Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC
Enforcement Bureau (May 7, 2009) (on file in EB-08-IH-5305) (NAL
^ See id at 1, 8.
^ See id. at 3-6 (citing Cooney, 5 FCC Rcd 7105).
^ Id. at 5 (citing Melody Music, Inc. v FCC, 345 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir.
1965) (Melody Music)).
^ NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 4106-07, paras. 10-11.
^ 47 C.F.R. S 73.1216.
^ Id., Note 1(b).
^ Id., Note 2.
^ See id. ("material terms should be disclosed periodically by
announcements broadcast on the station conducting the contest") (emphasis
added). Posting contest rules on a station's website does not satisfy
Section 73.1216's requirement that a licensee broadcast the material terms
of a contest it conducts. See, e.g., Service Broadcasting Group, LLC,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 8494, 8497, para.
10 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (assessed $4,000 forfeiture for inaccurate description
of contest prize) (forfeiture paid) (Service Broadcasting); AK Media
Group, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 7541, 7543,
para. 7 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (forfeiture paid).
^ See NAL Response at 1, 8.
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b).
^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.
^ The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, para. 53 (1997), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303,
para. 1 (1999).
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E).
^ See, e.g., Citicasters Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 16612, 16613-14, paras. 6, 8 (Enf. Bur. 2000)
($4,000 forfeiture imposed for the licensee's failure to fully and
accurately disclose contest term that the prize was one million Turkish
lira, not $1,000,000) (forfeiture paid); Clear Channel Broadcasting
Licenses, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd
2734, 2735-36, paras. 6, 9 (Enf. Bur. 2000) ($4,000 forfeiture imposed for
the licensee's failure to fully and accurately disclose contest term that
the prize was 10,000 Italian lira, not $10,000) (forfeiture paid); Service
Broadcasting, 24 FCC Rcd at 8497, para. 10 ($4,000 forfeiture proposed
for licensee's failure to fully and accurately disclose that prize was
access to a concert rather than access to a VIP section "up close and
personal" with performing artist Nelly).
^ See ABC, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd
25647, 25650, paras. 9-10 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (forfeiture paid) (ABC).
^ See id. at 25647, para. 2.
^ See id. at 25648, para. 4.
^ See id.
^ See id. at 25650-51, paras. 9-10.
^ See LOI Response at 6-7; NAL Response at 3-6.
^ See NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 4106-07, paras. 10-11.
^ ^ See NAL Response at 3-6; NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 4106-07, paras. 10-11.
^ See Cooney, 5 FCC Rcd 7105.
^ See id.
^ See LOI Response at 3-4; NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 4106, para. 9.
^ See NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 4106, para. 9. The Station's promotional
advertisement for the Contest states "Your choice of a Mercedes Benz
Z300W, an Audi TT 2.0 front wheel drive roadster, or a Toyota Prius
hybrid, from Prime Motor Group with no fine print gimmicks." LOI Response
at Exh. 1 (emphasis added). Yet, the unannounced winner qualifications
requirement and the misleading prize description appear to be just the
types of gimmicks that the announcement renounces.
^ Cooney, 5 FCC Rcd at 7105.
^ In addition, to the extent the Licensee's NAL Response suggests that it
took remedial measures that warrant a reduction in the sanction, we reject
such a contention. The NAL Response states that "it is not contending . .
. that corrective action excuses or nullifies a violation of [Commission]
rules" while simultaneously noting that "the necessary remediation in the
instant case involves enhanced future vigilance with respect to compliance
with the FCC's contest rule." NAL Response at 3, 6. It is well settled
that subsequent remedial actions do not excuse or nullify a licensee's
violation of a Commission rule. See, e.g., Colby-Sawyer College,
Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9302, 9303, para.7 (Media Bur. 2011)
("Corrective action taken to come into compliance with the Rules is
expected, and does not mitigate, much less negate, any prior forfeitures
or violations") (forfeiture paid). We may consider pre-investigative
remedial measures when we determine the sanction to be imposed for a rule
violation. See, e.g., Guy Gannett Publishing Co., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 5 FCC Rcd 7688, 7890, para. 12 (Mass Media Bur. 1990) ("the
Commission generally considers prompt and effective remedial action by a
licensee as mitigative in determining the appropriate sanction level in an
enforcement proceeding."). We do not consider that point applicable here,
however, because any purportedly mitigating measures that the Licensee
took occurred after our investigation commenced. See LOI Response at 2, 6,
Exh. 8 (noting the Licensee's "addressing with Station personnel the
omission of some material terms from the Station's announcement" and
distributing a March 19, 2009, advisory notice regarding "Required
Announcements Concerning Station-Sponsored Contests" to programming and
promotions personnel nearly one year after the Contest).
^ See NAL Response at 5.
^ See Broadcast Consultant's Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 58 FCC
2d 1290, 1292, para. 6 (1976).
^ See, e.g., Continental Broadcasting, Inc., v. Federal Communications
Commission, 439 F.2d 580, 582-83 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (finding that "the
choice of remedies and sanctions is a matter wherein the Commission has
broad discretion" and considering Melody Music not to be on point where
close parallels do not exist) (internal quotation marks, citations, and
subsequent history omitted); White Mountain Broadcasting Co., Inc., v.
Federal Communications Commission, 598 F.2d 274, 278-79 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
(upholding Melody Music in a licensing proceeding but finding that
differences between conduct of licensee at issue versus conduct of
licensees facing milder enforcement sanctions were "so `obvious' as to
remove the need for explanation") (internal citations and subsequent
^ See Entercom Wichita License, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 1270,
1273, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (forfeiture paid) (Entercom Wichita).
^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.
^ NAL Response at 3.
^ Id. at 6.
^ See LOI Response at 6.
^ See NAL, 24 FCC Rcd 4103, 4106, paras. 10-11.
^ See supra note 42 and accompanying text.
^ See, e.g., WMJX, Inc., Decision, 85 FCC 2d 251, 269-277, paras. 31-41
(1981) (subsequent history omitted) (WMJX, Inc.) (holding, in part, that
the licensee, as a public trustee, has an affirmative obligation to
prevent the broadcast of false, misleading or deceptive contest
^ See id.
^ See LOI Response at 6.
^ See Service Broadcasting, 24 FCC Rcd at 8497, para. 10; NM Licensing
LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 7916,
7919-20, para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 2006) (forfeiture paid) ("that it offered
compensation to the participants that were unable to participate due to
the alteration in schedule, does not mitigate [the licensee's] liability .
. . . [A] showing of harm is not necessary to establish a violation [of S
73.1216 of the Commission's rules]"); Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses,
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 6808, 6810,
para. 5 (Enf. Bur. 2006) (holding that with regard to what constitutes a
false, misleading or deceptive announcement, it is enough "if the net
impression of the announcement has a tendency to mislead the public")
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (forfeiture paid); Clear
Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 4072, 4074, para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 2006) ("Although
Clear Channel later conducted a second drawing, such remedial action does
not absolve it from liability and the proposed forfeiture penalty")
^ We caution licensees that future violations of comparable severity may
incur higher penalties.
^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b).
^ See 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 73.1216.
^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.
^ 47 U.S.C. S 504(a).
^ An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
(Continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-310
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-310