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.


                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                 )
CBS Broadcasting Inc.            )    File No. EB-04-IH-0110
                                )    Facility ID No. 9628
Licensee of Station KCBS-TV,     )
Los Angeles, California          )

                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Adopted:  June 21, 2005                         Released:    June 
23, 2005

By the Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


      1.                                       In this Order on 
 Reconsideration, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration 
 (``Petition'') dated October 21, 2004, of Judi and John Estrin 
 (``Petitioners'') of an Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') letter.  
 By that letter, the Bureau denied the Petitioners' complaint 
 against CBS Broadcasting Inc. (``CBS''), licensee of Station 
 KCBS-TV, Los Angeles, California.1  We agree with the 
 conclusion reached in the Denial Letter, that, based upon the 
 information before us, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate 
 that CBS violated section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules2 
 with respect to ``The Extra Point Sweepstakes'' contest 
 conducted during December 2003 over CBS's Station KCBS-TV.   


      2.      On February 27, 2004, Petitioners filed a written 
 complaint against CBS with the Commission.3  They alleged that 
 CBS had overstated the announced value of the prize in its 
 ``The Extra Point Sweepstakes'' contest conducted over Station 
 KCBS-TV, a trip to the 2004 Super Bowl game in Houston, Texas.  
 According to the Complaint, CBS had promoted the contest prize 
 as being worth $8,550.4  Petitioners claimed, however, that the 
 ``actual sums spent'' for the trip that Mrs. Estrin had 
 received as the contest winner were only $4,218.40.5  For this 
 reason, Petitioners expressed their concern that their federal 
 tax liability for the prize would be considerably more than the 
 actual value of the trip.6

      3.  The Bureau subsequently directed CBS to provide 
 information about the contest and the value of the prize that 
 it had awarded.7  In its response, CBS provided declarations 
 and accompanying materials indicating that it so valued the 
 prize because it paid a total of $8,550 for the trip to Map 
 Marketing and Incentives LLC (``Map Marketing''), the agency 
 that arranged for and provided the Super Bowl trip for the 
 winning contestant. 8  According to the CBS Response, Map 
 Marketing paid $6,575 to its vendors for related services and 
 received from CBS a fee in the amount of $1,975.9  In a reply 
 pleading, Petitioners maintained that, notwithstanding CBS's 
 representations, the hotel at which they stayed as part of the 
 contest prize trip was ``an older motor hotel'' located 
 ``several miles from the downtown area'' and that the Super 
 Bowl seats they were awarded were not ``premium seats'' in a 
 ``prime location,'' as promoted over Station KCBS-TV.  They 
 also objected to the inclusion of the agency fee that CBS had 
 paid to Map Marketing in the valuation of the prize. 10

      4.  In the Denial Letter, we found that the Petitioners had 
 provided no basis for us to conclude that CBS failed to 
 substantially comply with the requirements of section 73.1216 
 of the Commission's rules with respect to ``The Extra Point 
 Sweepstakes'' contest.  Specifically, we determined, 
 notwithstanding Petitioners' arguments to the contrary, that 
 CBS had provided reliable documentation adequately supporting 
 its position that the amount that it had paid to Map Marketing 
 for the contest prize was that of the prize value that it had 
 announced during the contest over Station KCBS-TV.  Thus, we 
 concluded that CBS had conducted the contest as announced, in 
 compliance with our rule. 11  

      5.  In their Petition, Petitioners challenge CBS's 
 valuation of the contest prize and the veracity of its Response 
 to the Bureau's letter of inquiry.  Thus, they state that, 
 although the CBS Response included a breakdown of the cost of 
 the various elements contained in the prize trip, the breakdown 
 improperly valued the airfare at $1,200, when it was actually 
 only $618.40.12  In its opposition to the petition, 13  CBS 
 acknowledges that it erroneously reported in its Response to 
 the Bureau's LOI the amount that Map Marketing had paid to a 
 vendor for Petitioners' airfare, the result of a 
 misunderstanding about the nature of the information that Map 
 Marketing provided to CBS.14  However, CBS confirms that it 
 ``paid $8,550 to Map Marketing to provide the trip package.''15  
 By letter dated November 7, 2004, Petitioners responded, 
 essentially repeating the arguments contained in their 


      6.  Section 73.1216 provides that ``[a] licensee that 
 broadcasts or advertises information about a contest that 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.''17  Material terms include those factors that define the 
 operation of the contest and that affect participation therein, 
 including, among other things, the extent, nature and value of 
 prizes and the basis for valuation of prizes.18  

      7.  CBS promoted the Super Bowl vacation package as worth 
 $8,550, the price it paid to Map Marketing for the package.  
 Petitioners argue that the value CBS should have promoted was 
 not CBS's purchase price, but the price paid by Map Marketing 
 for the various components of the package.19  The Commission 
 has endorsed the valuation of prizes at their retail value, 
 i.e., the price that contestants could expect to pay if they 
 purchased the prize themselves.20  Petitioners do not allege, 
 and there is no evidence to suggest, that the negotiations 
 between CBS and Map Marketing were not at arms-length.21  
 Indeed, Map Marketing sold similar packages at a substantially 
 higher price than that paid by CBS.22  We find, therefore, 
 based on the record before us that $8,550 was the retail value 
 of the prize package.23  

      8.  The use of specialized agents like Map Marketing to 
 obtain vacation packages is a common and reasonable practice, 
 particularly for highly popular events like the Super Bowl.  
 Through such agents, licensees minimize the administrative 
 burden on their own resources, gain access to tickets and 
 accommodations that might otherwise be unavailable, and reduce 
 the risk of cost overruns for hotly contested events.24  Under 
 Petitioners' reading of section 73.1216, however, licensees 
 would have to promote their prizes only for their wholesale 
 value, i.e., the price paid by the entity who furnished the 
 prize to the licensee.  Such a reading places an unreasonable 
 burden on licensees and is inconsistent with the intent of the 
 rule.  We therefore conclude that CBS lawfully promoted the 
 prize package as valued at $8,550, the retail value of the 
 package, and deny the Petition for Reconsideration.25


      9.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 
 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 
 1.106 of the Commission's rules, the Petition for 
 Reconsideration filed on October 21, 2004, by Judi and John 
 Estrin, IS DENIED.  

      10.      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order 
 shall be sent by Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested, to 
 Judi and John Estrin, 622 North Orange Street, Orange, 
 California 92867-6734, and to Howard F. Jaeckel, Vice President 
 and Associate General Counsel, CBS Broadcasting Inc., 1515 
 Broadway, New York, New York 10036-5794.


                         Kris Anne Monteith
                         Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau


1 Letter from William D. Freedman, Deputy Chief,  Investigations 
and   Hearings    Division,    Enforcement    Bureau,    Federal 
Communications  Commission  to  Judi  and  John  Estrin,,  dated 
October 13, 2004 (``Denial Letter'').

2 47 C.F.R.  73.1216.

3 See Letter from  Judi and John  Estrin to Enforcement  Bureau, 
Federal  Communications  Commission,  dated  February  27,  2004 

4 Id at 1.

5 Id. 

6 Id at 2.  

7  See   Letter  from   William  D.   Freedman,  Deputy   Chief, 
Investigations  and  Hearings   Division,  Enforcement   Bureau, 
Federal Communications  Commission,  to CBS  Broadcasting  Inc., 
dated July 30, 2004.

8  See  Letter  from  Howard  F.  Jaeckel,  Vice  President  and 
Associate General Counsel, CBS Broadcasting Inc., to Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal  Communications Commission,  dated September  1, 
2004 (``CBS Response'').

9 See CBS Response, Exhibit C, Declaration of Pat Ranier,  dated 
September 1, 2004.

10 See Letter from Judi and John Estrin, to Enforcement  Bureau, 
Federal  Communications  Commission,  dated  September  8,  2004 

11 See Denial Letter.

12 See Petition at 1.

13 See Letter  from Howard  F. Jaeckel,  to Enforcement  Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, dated November 3, 2004 (``CBS 

14 Id.

15 Id. at 1.

16 See Letter from Judi and John Estrin, to Enforcement  Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, dated November 7, 2004 .

17 47 C.F.R.  73.1216.

18 Id. at n.1.

19 CBS admits that it overstated  in its Response the amount  of 
money that  Map Marketing  had  actually paid  for  Petitioners' 
airfare.  CBS  Opposition at  1.  We  note that  this error  was 
contained in the Declaration of Map Marketing Vice President Pat 
Ranier and  relied  on by  CBS.   Petitioners have  provided  no 
evidence suggesting that CBS  knew or should  have known of  the 
error when it submitted the  Declaration with its LOI  Response.  
See 47 C.F.R.   1.17 (imposing  duty on respondents  to have  a 
reasonable  basis  for  material   factual  statements  to   the 
Commission).  Accordingly, we deny Petitioners' request that  we 
should impose a sanction against CBS for this error. 

20 See Dena Pictures, Inc. et al, Memorandum Opinion and  Order, 
71  FCC  2d  1402,  1409,    15  (1979)  (Commission   rejected 
allegation of a violation  of the contest  rule where a  contest 
purported to give away $10,000 worth of records, and the records 
awarded did in fact have a ``market retail value'' of  $10,000); 
Liability of Birch  Bay Broadcasting, Co.,  Licensee of  Station 
KARI, Blaine, Washington, Memorandum  Opinion and Order, 38  FCC 
2d 988, 990,   7  (1973) (Commission  found the  value of  each 
prize in an alleged lottery to  be $20, the ``retail value''  of 
each prize, despite a conflicting valuation by the licensee).

21 We  note there  could be  circumstances in  which a  licensee 
appears to  have ``overpaid''  an agent  for prizes  that  might 
raise concerns under section 73.1216,  but there is no  evidence 
to support such an allegation here.

22 See  CBS  Response,  Exhibit H  (promotional  flyer  for  Map 
Marketing and Incentives Super Bowl XXXVIII package for  $10,500 
that included same components as  prizes here, with addition  of 
rental car for four nights, invitation to private party, and two 
tickets to the ``NFL Experience''). 

23 With respect to Petitioner's complaints about the quality  of 
their hotel and their Super Bowl  seats, we find that CBS's  and 
promotional announcements  and  contest rules  comply  with  the 
requirements of section 73.1216 in that it promised nothing more 
than Petitioner's received.  See,  e.g.,CBS Response, Exhibit  E 
(promotional announcement; ``send in your scorecard for a chance 
to win a trip to see football's biggest spectacle''); Exhibit  F 
(contest rules; ``One Grand Prize Winner will win Two (2) round-
trip airline tickets  from Los Angeles  to Houston, Texas;  Four 
(4) nights hotel accommodations for two persons; Two (2) tickets 
to the pro-football championship game on February 1st at Reliant 
Stadium in Houston,  Texas; and round-trip  transfers via  motor 
coach to and from the game.  Value  of the Grand Prize is: $  8, 

24 CBS purchased the package from Map Marketing in October 2003, 
more than three  months before  the Super Bowl,  and two  months 
before it ran the ``Extra Point Sweepstakes.''  Moreover,  under 
the terms of the deal, Map  Marketing assumed the risk that  the 
various components of  the package  would cost  more than  price 
paid by CBS.  As CBS properly observes, many of the elements  of 
the prize package  here (e.g.,  game tickets,  hotel rooms)  are 
subject to ``supply and demand, which in turn are affected by  a 
number of factors, including the teams that ultimately face each 
other in the Super Bowl.''  CBS Opposition at 2 n.1.

25 Petitioners' complaints  about their tax  liability based  on 
CBS's valuation of the prize  package are irrelevant to  whether 
CBS complied  with the  Commission's rules.   Moreover, we  note 
that the record evidence reveals  that, after being selected  as 
the contest winner, Ms. Estrin executed a release form, in which 
she acknowledged  the  $8,550 prize  value,  her  responsibility 
``for any and all federal, state and local taxes'' arising  from 
the receipt of the prize and  the fact that the prize could  not 
be redeemed for cash.  CBS  Response, Exhibit B, Declaration  of 
Phyllis Mazzocchi  dated September  1, 2004,   Exhibit 1,  Prize 
Receipt/Release Form, dated January 8, 2004.