20+ LED Screen Firms Fined By FCC For Compliance Problems; Two For More Than $100K

November 30, 2018 by Dave Haynes

Some US LED sign manufacturers started making noises a couple of years ago about competing manufacturers – especially those from China – were selling product that did not comply with US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations.

The primary argument was that the FCC has rules in place that ensure light-emitting display devices do not interfere with authorized radio transmissions, like AM radio stations. In a nutshell – the FCC requires that electronic equipment, such as digital signs, be tested to ensure they are not radiating interference that exceeds specified levels.

Some state-side manufacturers argued that Chinese companies were selling budget displays with components that would not meet FCC requirements.

The last time we looked at this, a half-dozen companies had been nailed for varying degrees of compliance, some of those infractions pinned to paperwork or mislabeling. Now the FCC says since March of this year it has entered into 21 settlement agreements with companies identified as marketing non-compliant LED signs, in violation of the Communications Act and FCC rules. The settlements were as high as $115,000 and totalled $850,000 in penalties paid to the U.S. Treasury.

Some of them are, as predicted, Chinese firms that are not well known here, but there are also some big names like Absen and Lighthouse, and a couple of US-based companies. There are some pretty hefty fines for what seem, at least, like pedestrian stuff, such as “violating the Equipment Marketing Rules by marketing LED signs without the required labeling.”

Lighthouse paid the biggest penalty: The investigation, the FCC said, revealed that Lighthouse violated the Equipment Marketing Rules by marketing certain LED signs without the required equipment authorizations.

Lighthouse has since achieved that compliance, says the FCC.

From the FCC release:

Adherence to the FCC’s equipment authorization and marketing rules is critical because radio frequency emissions from the signs may cause harmful interference to licensed communications, such as wireless services.

“In light of these recent settlements, we remind LED sign marketers of their obligations under the law,” says Enforcement Bureau Chief Rosemary Harold. “The FCC takes seriously its responsibility in ensuring that energy-emitting devices like LED lights do not interfere with authorized transmissions.”

LED lights are often used in digital billboards and other commercial and industrial applications, including billboards and large video displays in sports arenas. Given the electrical design of these lights, they may emit radio frequency energy. Prior to being marketed in the United States, LED sign models must be tested and comply with FCC technical standards and must include the proper labeling, identification, and user information disclosures.

The equipment authorization process for RF devices, including LED signs, is overseen by the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology.

The Enforcement Bureau investigated hundreds of indoor and outdoor LED sign models and discovered repeated FCC rule violations concerning the failure to market the models with the required equipment authorizations, labeling, and user information disclosures. To settle its respective investigation, each company verified that the models at issue were brought into compliance with FCC rules, agreed to pay a monetary penalty, and committed to abide by a compliance plan to improve internal procedures to avoid future violations.

Here’s a wide sampling of the settlements, with the links and the amounts:

Gable – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-1051A1.pdf – $50,000

Adaptive Microsystems – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-996A1.pdf – $50,000

Hyoco – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-970A1.pdf – $21,000

NanoLumens – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-654A1.pdf – $27,500

Absen – https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-equipment-marketing-investigation-absen-inc – $55,000

Electro-Matic Visual – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-696A1.pdf – $105,000

Vantage LED – https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-equipment-marketing-investigation-vantage-led – $15,000

Yaham – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-656A1.pdf – $20,000

D3 – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-626A1.pdf – $40,000

Thinksign – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-757A1.pdf – $43,000

Prismview – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-572A1.pdf – $14,000

Lightking – https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-equipment-marketing-investigation-lightking-outdoor – $15,000

Liantronics – https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-equipment-marketing-investigation-liantronics – $61,000

Lighthouse – https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-115000-led-sign-investigation-lighthouse – $115,000

Each settlement is available on the Bureau homepage at https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement.

  1. In fact, many production suppliers have not passed this certification, including FCC, CCC, ROHS, and many times buyers are acquiesced in this fake certification.

  2. Great article as always. Thanks.

    Best regards,


Leave a comment