The full FCC approved a $2.3 million forfeiture against Bronx, New York, pirate radio broadcaster Johnny Peralta, an order released Thursday said. Peralta was operating the pirate station La Mia Radio for years. The Enforcement Bureau initially contacted him in 2018. EB agents have noted La Mia Radio’s continued unauthorized broadcasts ever since, according to a notice of apparent liability in November. Peralta didn’t respond to the NAL, the FCC said. The forfeiture is the maximum allowed under law. “Some of the most egregious pirate radio operations are run by individuals who have ignored prior enforcement actions by the Commission,” the forfeiture order said. “As such, it merits the strongest possible enforcement measures to the fullest extent of the law.” The FCC lacks the power to enforce collecting fines, especially from non-licensees. Only DOJ can bring delinquent forfeiture subjects to court, but broadcasters have told us that the high fine amounts like Peralta’s are expected to make pursuing collection more worthwhile for prosecutors. Peralta couldn’t be reached for comment. The forfeiture order was originally part of the agenda for Wednesday's FCC meeting, though it was listed only as an Enforcement Bureau item, as is typical for enforcement actions. A deletion notice was released late Thursday.
A bipartisan group of senators on Wednesday formally filed legislation that would establish liability for sharing AI-driven content without the original creator’s consent. Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del.; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., introduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art and Keep Entertainment Safe (No Fakes) Act (see 2310120036). The measure would hold individuals, companies and platforms liable for creating and hosting such content. “Generative AI can be used as a tool to foster creativity, but that can’t come at the expense of the unauthorized exploitation of anyone’s voice or likeness,” Coons said in a statement. The Computer & Communications Industry Association said the bill is “well-intentioned,” but as written it would “undermine Section 230, place limits on freedom of expression, and shrink fair use.” In addition, it lacks provisions protecting fair use and free expression, said Brian McMillan, vice president-federal affairs: “We understand the risks of false information that appears real, as our members deploy many algorithmic tools to identify and respond to deepfakes. This legislation emphasizes liability over support for these efforts.”
Communications Daily is tracking the lawsuits below involving appeals of FCC actions.
The Media and Democracy Project submitted a petition with 25,532 signatures calling for an FCC hearing on whether Fox News' conduct during the 2020 election violated the agency's requirements for broadcast licensees. The item was filed on the one-year anniversary of MAD’s original filing challenging the license renewal of Fox-owned station WTXF-TV Philadelphia and includes signatories from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, MAD said. The FCC has not acted on MAD’s petition to deny. “These thousands of signees want satisfaction for the discord Fox has sown, alienating friend from friend and family member from family member over contrivances it pushed to preserve ratings and profits,” the filing said. “While FOX has peppered this proceeding with politicians and sports teams, we have dedicated our efforts to educating everyday Americans about the FCC’s role in determining whether FOX's leadership meets the character expected of a broadcast licensee,” MAD Executive Director Milo Vassalo said. A New York Times article Tuesday reported that Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch is involved in a court battle with several of his children over changes to the family trust and ownership of Fox. Former Fox and Disney executive Preston Padden, who supports MAD’s petition, said the FCC would have to act if control of Fox is transferred from Rupert Murdoch to one of his sons. Benton Institute for Broadband & Society Senior Counselor Andrew Schwartzman said that while the agency normally resolves license challenges before a transfer of control is complete, it could simply deny the MAD petition or refuse action on the transfer. Fox didn’t comment.
Communications Daily is tracking the lawsuits below involving appeals of FCC actions.
FCC Administrative Law Judge Jane Halprin has ordered broadcast attorney Dan Alpert to explain how he can represent multiple clients whose interests conflict with each other in a hearing. The proceeding involves allegedly false transfers of control of low-power radio and TV stations (see 2310020059). Alpert declined to comment. The proceeding concerns allegations that Antonio Guel transferred stations to his niece, Jennifer Juarez, to avoid including them in a bankruptcy filing, although he remained in control of the stations. Guel’s daughter, Maria Guel, allegedly controls other companies involved in the transaction (see 2402060049). The Enforcement Bureau filed an emergency motion Monday asking for Halprin to take action against Antonio Guel’s attorney, Alpert, after he informed it that he would be representing both Maria Guel and Juarez in depositions scheduled for next week. “Mr. Alpert now represents two witnesses in the case who are likely to provide information that is directly and materially adverse to the interests of his original client, Mr. Guel,” the EB motion said. Halprin cautioned Alpert in February about apparent conflicts of interest in the case. “It is a fundamental rule of practicing law that a lawyer may not represent clients in the same matter whose interests are adverse to each other,” wrote Halprin in Tuesday’s order. While Halprin said that rule can be waived if the parties provide informed consent, the EB argued that some conflicts in this matter can't be waived under DC Bar ethics rules. “The responsibility is on Mr. Alpert to know and adhere to applicable rules of professional conduct,” Halprin wrote. “At the same time, the Presiding Judge must be mindful that the Administrative Procedure Act and the Commission’s rules allow witnesses to be represented by counsel.” The EB “cannot risk incurring the cost of these depositions at the public’s expense only to have Mr. Guel or Ms. Juarez later claim ineffective assistance of counsel and/or otherwise challenge the integrity or validity of this entire proceeding,” the EB said. Tuesday’s order gives Alpert until Friday to respond and “include an explanation of how he reconciles his simultaneous representation of Mr. Guel, Ms. Guel, and Ms. Juarez with applicable rules of professional conduct.”
The FCC Tuesday announced a new Mobile Speed Test app it will use in helping the agency collect information for broadband mapping. Replacing the original FCC Speed Test app, the new version “features an enhanced user interface that makes challenging the accuracy of the provider-reported mobile coverage data even easier,” the FCC said. The app lets users conduct repeated tests without entering and certifying information before each test, allowing for “hands-free mobile tests while driving,” the agency said. It’s available for Apple and Android devices. “Consumers deserve to know where they have mobile coverage and at what speeds and the FCC wants to include their experiences in our effort to create a more precise map of available coverage,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said.
New America's Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge attacked the Public Safety Spectrum Alliance (PSSA) proposal that assigns the 4.9 GHz band to FirstNet, “either directly through a nationwide license or indirectly through a sharing agreement.” PSSA is “effectively proposing that the Commission reallocate the band for a single use (mobile broadband) and assign it exclusively, without competitive bidding, to AT&T,” the groups said in a Tuesday filing in docket 07-100. If the FCC agrees with the PSSA, it would allow the band to be used “predominantly for commercial use, but only by one user: AT&T,” the filing said: “Contrary to the original Congressional vision of a separate interoperable public safety mobile network, over time FirstNet has become little more than a priority access tier on AT&T’s commercial mobile network.” PSAA’s proposal “would amount to an enormous windfall for AT&T that could distort mobile market competition,” PK and OTI said. The band's future is hotly contested. AT&T last week noted the support for giving FirstNet access to the spectrum (see 2407110012). The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association also opposed FirstNet control in a filing posted Tuesday in docket 07-100. “The PSSA plan would take the 4.9 GHz band away from local public-safety entities and give it to FirstNet, which would effectively hand control over to AT&T, a commercial provider,” the association said.
Consumer and public interest advocates opposed a push in the 11th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court by a group representing lead generators and their clients aimed at overturning the FCC’s Dec. 18 robocall and robotext order. The order was approved 4-1, with Commissioner Nathan Simington dissenting. It clamps down on the lead generator (LG) loophole (see 231208004) and will become effective in January unless the court intervenes.
The U.S. Supreme Court should reconsider its denial of a petition for certiorari from a group of Black voters challenging state methods for electing Georgia Public Service Commission members, the voters said Friday. The group filed a petition for rehearing in case 23-1060. Last month, the Supreme Court denied the original petition (see 2406240041). Then, on July 10, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing en banc of a denial by one of its panels (see 2407100050). Noting dissents by three 11th Circuit judges, the petitioners wrote, “The July 10 order and accompanying opinions are ‘intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect’ that warrant rehearing in this case.” The Supreme Court didn’t get to consider the en banc opinion before denying cert, they added. That’s because the 11th Circuit didn’t disclose until July 10 “that en banc proceedings had been ongoing,” petitioners said. Had it done so earlier, the deadline to file a cert petition “would have been extended until those proceedings resolved.”