The stations hit with the fine are KOST-FM, KHHT-FM, KBIG-FM, KFI-AM and KYSR-FM and the 2008 contest involved a car giveaway. The Clear Channel cluster asked listeners to produce commercials for a car, the best commercial would be voted on by website users. The FCC says Clear Channel deserves the fine of $22K because it failed to broadcast all the rules of the contest on the air. Clear Channel posted the contest rules online, the contest winner was chosen via online voting but the FCC says more details about contest rules should have been broadcast.
Take a look at how broadcast attorney David Oxenford summarized the situation in his blog:
1.You must provide all of the material rules of the contest in on-air announcements a sufficient number of times so that a listener could be expected to hear such announcements and
2.The rules for a contest that is primarily conducted through a station website must still be broadcast on the air if the fact that the contest is occurring on the website is promoted over the air (see our article on a previous case reaching the same conclusion).
The big fine is a result multiple stations being involved in the contest. Here are more details from the FCC ruling:
"Under section 73.1216 of the Commission?s rules, a broadcast licensee ?that broadcasts or advertises information about a contest it conducts shall fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the contest. Material terms, among other things, include any eligibility restrictions, means of selection of winners, and the extent, nature and value of prizes. We find that Clear Channel apparently violated section 73.1216 of the Commission?s rules by failing to fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the Contest in the method prescribed by the Commission?s rules. Clear Channel asserts that the Contest ?was conducted on the Station Websites, and not as an over-the-air contest. It acknowledges, however, that the Stations broadcast advertisements for the Contest. Clear Channel further acknowledges that its Contest rules were not broadcast, but instead were made available via the Stations? websites.25 By asserting that the Contest was conducted ?on the Station websites,? Clear Channel appears to imply that the Contest was not subject to the Commission rule?s requirements, or that, alternatively, its method of disclosure was otherwise mitigating or exculpating. The Commission, however, has previously found a licensee liable under section 73.1216 in a case where the licensee promoted its contest through broadcast even though the contest itself was conducted principally through its website. Thus, Clear Channel?s broadcast promotion of the Contest renders it fully subject to the Commission?s rule. Moreover, the Commission has found that licensees cannot avail themselves of alternative non-broadcast announcements to satisfy the requirement that they accurately announce a contest?s material terms.28 The Commission?s rules clearly provide that ?[t]he material terms should be disclosed periodically by announcements broadcast on the station conducting the contest.? The Commission?s rules provide that while disclosure by non-broadcast means (such as on a website) can be considered in determining whether adequate disclosure has been made, any non-broadcast disclosures must be ?[i]n addition to the required broadcast announcements? and cannot substitute for them.30 Accordingly, we find that Clear Channel?s failure to broadcast the material terms of the Contest constitutes a violation of section 73.1216.
Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend
