Daily Digest 7/17/2018 (FCC vs Sinclair-Tribune)

[This] announcement is welcome. As I have noted before, too many of this agency’s media policies have been custom built to support the business plans of Sinclair Broadcasting. With this hearing designation order, the agency will finally take a hard look at its proposed merger with Tribune. This is overdue and favoritism like this needs to end. I have voted to approve.

Sinclair Broadcasting released a lengthy statement in response to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai's move to designate the Tribune deal for hearing before the FCC's administrative law judge. Sinclair said it had misled no one, had complied with FCC rules, been transparent about what it was trying to do, and was willing to adjust the merger yet again -- it has submitted five versions so far --  to avoid the hearing and close the deal.

“Sinclair was shocked and disappointed today by the news that FCC Chairman Pai was circulating an order proposing to designate our acquisition of Tribune for an administrative hearing. Although the actual Hearing Designation Order (HDO) has not yet been released, press reports indicate that a leaked version of the HDO [haering designation order] suggests that Sinclair may have engaged in misrepresentation or lack of candor. To the extent that the HDO does in fact include any such allegations, we deny such allegations in the strongest possible manner,” Sinclair said. “Throughout the FCC review process of this transaction, we have had numerous meetings and discussions with the FCC’s Media Bureau to make sure that they were fully aware of the transaction’s structure and basis for complying with FCC rules and meeting public interest obligations. These structures are consistent with structures that Sinclair and many other broadcasters have utilized for many years with the full approval of the FCC. During these discussions and in our filings with the FCC, we have been completely transparent about every aspect of the proposed transaction. We have fully identified who the buyers are and the terms under which stations would be sold to such buyer, including any ongoing relationship we would have with any such stations after the sales. We have filed all relevant agreements documenting such terms as required by FCC rules."

At the end of June, California enacted what has been billed as a comprehensive privacy law. By all accounts, it was a rush job, negotiated in a week behind closed doors in a desperate and successful attempt to keep Californians for Consumer Privacy Campaign Chairman Alaistair MacTaggart’s privacy initiative off the November ballot. As sometimes happens, the law’s proponents and a few reporters may have overhyped the legislation – both given its current contents and because many expect it to change before its effective date in January 2020.

Nonetheless, lawmakers in Congress and in states beyond California may be looking to the new law for ideas. Those doing so should take the law as it stands with a grain of salt. Even before the ink dried on the law, stakeholders were promised additional legislation amending the law, and the California Attorney General is required to promulgate rules enacting the details of the law in 2020. Plus, it’s impossible to know what exactly a law will do until it goes into effect and is litigated. But, this blog takes a deep dive into the law and outlines some of the provisions policymakers should keep in mind as they consider which parts of the California law to export.