Gray: 2018 QR Order Shows Flaws in $518,000 Forfeiture
The 2018 quadrennial review order supports Gray Television's arguments against the FCC’s $518,000 enforcement action over a 2020 transaction involving an Anchorage station, Gray told the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a response letter Thursday. Gray was responding…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
to an FCC letter last week giving the court notice of the QR order, which was released in December. Gray has argued that the agency created a requirement for what data is used to determine station rankings without notice when it issued the forfeiture in 2022 (see 2307240065). Ratings data from the time of the transaction showed Gray already owned two of the top-four stations in the market, which the broadcaster has argued means the Anchorage deal didn’t result in a new top-four combination -- instead an existing top-four combination added another station. The FCC has argued that this ratings data wasn’t available to Gray when it made the deal and so is invalid. The QR order changes the ranking methodology to use “available data over a 12-month period immediately preceding the date of application,” Gray told the court Thursday. The inclusion of the word “available” in the QR order “underscores its prior absence, and it highlights the FCC’s failure to provide Gray with fair notice of such a requirement which the FCC invented to justify penalizing Gray,” said the broadcaster. The QR order also doesn’t show that applying the agency’s rule against affiliation swaps to Gray’s purchase of a station’s network affiliation “furthered an interest in competition, as the First Amendment requires,” Gray told the court. “Thus, nothing the FCC said in the 2023 Order cures the fatal defect in the Forfeiture Order.” Oral argument in the case is set for March.