U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— PENAL PROVISIONS; FORFEITURES

47 U.S.C. § 509

Prohibited practices in contests of knowledge, skill, or chance

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Influencing, prearranging, or predetermining outcomeIt shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public—(1) To supply to any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill any special and secret assistance whereby the outcome of such contest will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.(2) By means of persuasion, bribery, intimidation, or otherwise, to induce or cause any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill to refrain in any manner from using or displaying his knowledge or skill in such contest, whereby the outcome thereof will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.(3) To engage in any artifice or scheme for the purpose of prearranging or predetermining in whole or in part the outcome of a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance.(4) To produce or participate in the production for broadcasting of, to broadcast or participate in the broadcasting of, to offer to a licensee for broadcasting, or to sponsor, any radio program, knowing or having reasonable ground for believing that, in connection with a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance constituting any part of such program, any person has done or is going to do any act or thing referred to in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection.(5) To conspire with any other person or persons to do any act or thing prohibited by paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of such conspiracy.(b) “Contest” and “the listening or viewing public” definedFor the purposes of this section—(1) The term “contest” means any contest broadcast by a radio station in connection with which any money or any other thing of value is offered as a prize or prizes to be paid or presented by the program sponsor or by any other person or persons, as announced in the course of the broadcast.(2) The term “the listening or viewing public” means those members of the public who, with the aid of radio receiving sets, listen to or view programs broadcast by radio stations.(c) Penalties

Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title V, § 508, formerly § 509, as added Pub. L. 86–752, § 9, Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 897; renumbered § 508, Pub. L. 96–507, § 1, Dec. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 2747.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 508 of act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, was renumbered section 507 by section 1 of Pub. L. 96–507, and is classified to section 508 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (1979). “§ 1 (17) (b) (prohibiting the “bribery” of agents or employees of common carriers), and the 1960 Amendments to the Communications Act, 47 U. S. C. § 509 (a) (2) (prohibiting the “bribery” of television game show contestants).”
Head v. New Mexico Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, 374 U.S. 424 (1963). · cites it 2× “47 U. S. C. § 509 . While the failure expressly to regulate nondeceptive advertising surely does not deprive the FCC of all such jurisdiction, that failure argues against a congressional design that state regulation was to be ousted.”
United States v. Luciano Pascacio-Rodriguez, 749 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2014). “§ 1761 (o)(3) (conspiracy to violate certain provisions regulating the summer food service program for children); 47 U.S.C. § 509 (a)(5) (conspiracy to influence, prearrange, or predetermine the outcome of a radio contest); 49 U.”
United States v. Vincent R. Perrin, Jr., David L. Levy & Duffy J. Lafont, Jr., 580 F.2d 730 (5th Cir. 1978). “47 U.S.C. § 509 . Nardello could not have been charged under Pennsylvania extortion statute because Pennsylvania defined extortion as did the common law, i.”
Andrews v. Fremantlemedia, N.A., 613 F. App'x 67 (2d Cir. 2015). “Rather, the complaint provides a different, and entirely valid, reason for Golightly’s disqualification: his failure to disclose that he was previously under contract as a member of a music group named Dream5, despite being explicitly asked in the American Idol background…”
Melody Music, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 345 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1965). “Section 509, Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 509 (Supp. V, 1964). . In re Applications of Nat’l Broadcasting Co.”
United States v. Manzo, 851 F. Supp. 2d 797 (D.N.J. 2012). “§ l(17)(b)); payments of television game show contestants under 1960 Amendments to the Communications Act ( 47 U.S.C. § 509 (a)(2)); bank officers to influence their consideration of loans ( 18 U.”
Nat'l Ass'n for Better Broad. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 849 F.2d 665 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “And, as the majority itself points out, other results, silly and serious, ensue: game shows on that channel need no longer be run honestly, see 47 U.S.C. § 509 (prohibiting practices influencing, prearranging or predetermining the outcome in broadcast contests of knowledge,…”
Annabi v. New York Univ. (2d Cir. 2025). ““To successfully assert a claim under General Business Law § 349(h) or § 350, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer- oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered 1 Annabi does not appear to challenge the…”
In re the Extradition of Heilbronn, 773 F. Supp. 1558 (W.D. Mich. 1991). “§ l(17)(b) (prohibiting the “bribery” of agents or employees of common carriers), and the 1960 Amendments to the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 509 (a)(2) (prohibiting the “bribery” of television game show contestants).”
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.