47 C.F.R. § 76.2000

Exclusive access to multiple dwelling units generally

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Prohibition. No cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 shall enforce or execute any provision in a contract that grants to it the exclusive right to provide any video programming service (alone or in combination with other services) to a MDU. All such exclusivity clauses are null and void.

(b) Prohibition of graduated revenue sharing agreements. No cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 shall enter into or enforce any contract regarding the provision of communications service in a MDU, written or oral, in which it gives the MDU owner compensation on a graduated basis.

(1) Definition. For purposes of this paragraph (b), a “graduated basis” means that the compensation a cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 pays to a MDU owner for each tenant served increases as the total number of tenants served by the cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 in the MDU increases.

(2) Compliance dates—(i) Compliance date for new contracts. After April 27, 2022, no cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 shall enter into any contract regarding the provision of communications service in a MDU, written or oral, in which it gives the MDU owner compensation on a graduated basis.

(ii) Compliance date for existing contracts. After September 26, 2022, no cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 shall enforce any contract regarding the provision of communications service in an MDU, written or oral, in existence as of April 27, 2022, in which it gives the MDU owner compensation on a graduated basis.

(c) Prohibition of exclusive revenue sharing agreements. No cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 shall enter into or enforce any contract regarding the provision of communications service in a MDU, written or oral, in which it receives the exclusive right to provide the MDU owner compensation in return for access to the MDU and its tenants.

(1) Compliance date for new contracts. After April 27, 2022, no cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 shall enter into any contract, written or oral, in which it receives the exclusive right to provide the MDU owner compensation in return for access to the MDU and its tenants.

(2) Compliance date for existing contracts. After September 26, 2022, no cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 shall enforce any contract regarding the provision of communications service in a MDU, written or oral, in existence as of April 27, 2022, in which it receives the exclusive right to provide the MDU owner compensation in return for access to the MDU and its tenants.

(d) Required disclosure of exclusive marketing arrangements. A cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 shall disclose the existence of any contract regarding the provision of communications service in a MDU, written or oral, in which it receives the exclusive right to market its service to tenants of a MDU.

(1) Such disclosure must:

(i) Be included on all written marketing material, whether electronic or in print, that is directed at tenants or prospective tenants of the affected MDU;

(ii) Identify the existence of the contract and include a plain-language description of the arrangement, including that the provider has the right to exclusively market its communications services to tenants in the MDU, that such a right does not mean that the provider is the only entity that can provide such services to tenants in the MDU, and that service from an alternative provider may be available; and

(iii) Be made in a manner that it is clear, conspicuous, and legible.

(2)(i) Compliance date for new contracts. After August 22, 2022, a cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 shall disclose the existence of any contract regarding the provision of communications service in a MDU, written or oral, in which it receives the exclusive right to market its service to tenants of an MDU.

(ii) Compliance date for existing contracts. After September 26, 2022, a cable operator or other provider of MVPD service subject to 47 U.S.C. 548 shall disclose the existence of any contract regarding the provision of communications service in a MDU, written or oral, in which it receives the exclusive right to market its service to tenants of an MDU.

(e) Definition. For purposes of this rule, MDU shall include a multiple dwelling unit building (such as an apartment building, condominium building or cooperative) and any other centrally managed residential real estate development (such as a gated community, mobile home park, or garden apartment); provided however, that MDU shall not include time share units, academic campuses and dormitories, military bases, hotels, rooming houses, prisons, jails, halfway houses, hospitals, nursing homes or other assisted living facilities.

[73 FR 1089, Jan. 7, 2008, as amended at 87 FR 17194, Mar. 28, 2022; 87 FR 51269, Aug. 22, 2022]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: Cates v. Crystal Clear Tech., LLC, 874 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cates v. Crystal Clear Tech., LLC, 874 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “20235, 20251 (2007) (codified by 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000 (a)) (hereinafter “Exclusivity Order”).”

S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner's Ass'n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2013). “¶ 31 (codified at 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000 ). For the purposes of the order, a “multiple dwelling unit” includes “centrally managed residential real estate developments.”

Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Ass'n v. OpenBand at Lansdowne, LLC, 713 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2013). “” Exclusivity Order ¶ 31 (codified at 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000 (a)). B. In 1999, a partnership of Virginia land developers created the Lansdowne Community Development (“LCD”), a limited liability company with the purpose of developing a residential community known as Lansdowne on the…”

The Palms of Destin Club, LLC v. Commc'ns Processing Sys. Inc. (11th Cir. 2022). · cites it 6× “§ 548 and 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000 , which prohibit cable operators from harming competition through exclusivity agreements.”

Comcast of California/Massachusetts/Michigan/Utah v. FirstDigital Commc'ns (D. Utah 2025). · cites it 3× “43 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000 (a). The Complaint cites directly to the relevant FCC Orders, however the Court has cited to the respective federal regulations wherein the orders were codified for simplicity.”

Warren Hous. v. Ne. Cable, 2017 Ohio 5513 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “Among the arguments raised by Kearney and Cambridge, it was argued that Warren Housing and Northeast Cable “are prohibited from entering into a contract the purpose of which is to obtain cable services from one provider to the exclusion of all others by 47 CFR 76.2000.” {¶10} On…”

Mobile Nat'l Dev. Co., LLC v. Spectrum Mid-Am., LLC (Mo. Ct. App. 2024). “” 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000 (a). The question becomes then whether the parties’ 2003 exclusivity provision violates the FCC Order and for that we lean on our well-worn rules of contract interpretation.”

— 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000(a) — 1 case

Warren Hous. v. Ne. Cable, 2017 Ohio 5513 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Among the arguments raised by Kearney and Cambridge, it was argued that Warren Housing and Northeast Cable “are prohibited from entering into a contract the purpose of which is to obtain cable services from one provider to the exclusion of all others by 47 CFR 76.2000.” {¶10} On…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.