Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters:  June 30, 2025 to July 3, 2025

By David Oxenford & Keenan Adamchak on July 6, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

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.

  • Paramount/CBS settled its lawsuit with President Trump for $16 million.  Last Fall, President Trump sued CBS for its supposed deceptive editing of the 60 Minutes interview with then-Vice President Harris which, as we noted here, here, and here, is also the basis of a pending news distortion complaint at the FCC.  As part of the settlement, Paramount/CBS agreed to release written transcripts of future 60 Minutes interviews with presidential candidates.  FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement stating that the settlement “should alarm anyone who values a free and independent press,” and “now casts a long shadow over the integrity of the transaction pending before the FCC.”  Gomez called again for the FCC to bring the Paramount-Skydance transfer applications before the full Commission for a vote given the public’s interest in the deal and the need for transparency.  As we noted here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, the applications propose Skydance principal David Ellison acquire a controlling stake in Paramount and become its Chairman and CEO.
  • The FCC released a draft Direct Final Rule in its Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding that, if adopted at its July 24 Open Meeting, would eliminate 18 rules that are now obsolete or outdated due to technological, marketplace, and other changes since the rules were implemented.  This is the first batch of rules that the FCC has slated for deletion in the proceeding.  For broadcasters, among the rules to be deleted is the FCC’s closed captioning decoder requirements for analog television receivers – technology obsolete after the completion of the DTV transition over a decade ago.  What is perhaps most important about this action is not the decision itself to delete an obsolete rule, but the process that the FCC is using to delete it.  Instead of the usual notice and comment rulemaking proceeding (releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking telling the public what it planned to do and asking for comments), the FCC is electing to proceed by the new “direct final rule” process.  This process announces that the rule is to be deleted and allows for a 10-day period in which the public can comment on the proposed deletion.  If significant comments are filed arguing that the rule should not be deleted, the FCC would proceed with a notice and comment process before acting.  If not, the deletion stands.  If adopted at the July 24 meeting, comments on the proposed rule elimination will be due 10 days after the item’s publication in the Federal Register, and unless the FCC determines that notice and comment procedures are necessary, the rule deletion will take effect 60 days after the Federal Register publication.    
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau granted a series of assignment applications permitting a broadcaster to acquire from subsidiaries of Sinclair, Inc. four TV stations, including stations with two top-4 network affiliations on separate multicast streams in both the Qunicy-Hannibal-Keokuk, IA-IL-MO and Ottumwa-Kirksville, IA-MO DMAs.  The assignee also requested a continuing TV satellite waiver of the FCC’s Local Television Ownership Rule for Sinclair’s two TV stations in the Champaign-Urbana and Springfield-Decatur, IL DMA.  The Bureau rejected a petition to deny against the applications which claimed that Sinclair lacked the required character qualifications to be an FCC licensee because it set up “sidecar” entities to evade the FCC’s TV ownership limitations in certain markets, finding that the FCC had previously considered and rejected arguments about these sidecar entities and that these concerns were unrelated to the present transaction.  As for the present applications, the Bureau found that the assignee made the required public interest showing to justify an exception to the FCC’s Top-4 Prohibition (which prohibits broadcasters from owning two of the top-4 affiliated TV stations in a DMA) to allow it to continue to have two network affiliations in each market, concluding that, without the action, viewers in the markets would lose access to network over-the-air programming as the DMAs could not support another independently owned network-affiliated station.  The Bureau also granted the request for a continuing satellite waiver, finding that the grounds that initially justified the Champaign station’s operation as a satellite of the Springfield station remained unchanged. 
  • The Media Bureau also granted the license renewal applications for three Maryland TV stations over a petition to deny claiming that Sinclair, the licensee of one of the stations, controlled the other two stations and that Sinclair has repeatedly violated the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules, has failed to negotiate with multichannel video programming distributors in good faith, and has failed to maintain its online public inspection files.  Many of these issues were resolved in a Consent Decree, which we noted last week.  The petitioner passed away after filing the petition, and the Bureau rejected attempts to substitute an unrelated party as the petitioner, leading the Bureau to grant the renewal applications as there was no party left to prosecute the petition.
  • The US Supreme Court agreed to hear in its next term a First Amendment challenge by the National Republican Senatorial Committee to restrictions on the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for federal office, potentially setting the stage to give candidates access to additional party funds for advertising and other campaign expenses. 
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued two Notices of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting against a Bronx, New York landowner and a Sweet Home, Oregon landowner for allegedly allowing pirates to broadcast from their properties.  The Bureau warned the landowners that the FCC may issue fines of up to $2,453,218 under the PIRATE Radio Act if the landowners continue to permit pirate radio broadcasting from their properties.
Photo of David Oxenford David Oxenford

David Oxenford represents broadcasting and digital media companies in connection with regulatory, transactional and intellectual property issues. He has represented broadcasters and webcasters before the Federal Communications Commission, the Copyright Royalty Board, courts and other government agencies for over 30 years.

Read more about David OxenfordEmailDavid's Linkedin ProfileDavid's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Communications, Media & Entertainment
  • Blog:
    Broadcast Law Blog
  • Organization:
    David Oxenford, Esq
  • Article: View Original Source

Have questions? Call 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Syndication Terms of Service
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo