Floating 'Eyesores' Are Illegal Advertisements, City Suit Claims
New York City is seeking an injunction and fines against a Florida-based company's barge-based billboards that have been floating along city waterways since October 2018.
March 27, 2019 at 03:19 PM
3 minute read
If you've recently visited the waterfront in Lower Manhattan, driven along the FDR Drive, or hung out in one of the Brooklyn parks along the East River, you may have seen it: a large, bright floating billboard chugging by in the water.
Attorneys with the city's Law Department say those waterborne advertisements are not only in poor taste, but are illegal, and are asking a federal judge in Manhattan for an injunction to keep them off the waterways around the city.
The company, Ballyhoo Media, has been operating in New York City since October 2018, according to the city's lawsuit. It claims to provide advertisers a unique opportunity to reach their audiences by changing the landscape of outdoor advertising through the 1,200-square-foot digital screens attached to its boats.
The city claims the company's barges violate restrictions on water-based advertisements that have been in place since 1964, with the passage of the federal Highway Beautification Act. The federal law delegates to states the power and responsibility of regulating signage along major highways to ensure both safety and the preservation of “natural beauty.”
The city, empowered by the state, has codified these restrictions into its local zoning law, which bars advertisement on waterways adjacent to any of the major types of land use—residential, commercial and manufacturing—as well as within view of “arterial highways,” which include the city's shoreline drives.
“Our waterways aren't Times Square. These floating eyesores have no place on them,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement. “Ballyhoo is operating in direct violation of the law, and we are filing this suit to put a stop to it.”
On top of being ugly, the city claims the advertisements pose a safety risk to drivers.
“Ballyhoo openly promotes its large, water-based, LED billboards as specifically designed to attract the attention of drivers, necessarily posing a serious safety hazard on busy waterfront highways,” Corporation Counsel Zachary Carter said in a statement.
According to the complaint, the city reached out to the company in January, notifying it that its large billboards were unlawful. The city claims the company responded through counsel that it would continue its operations.
The suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeks an injunction prohibiting the company from operating on city waterways. The city also is seeking a civil penalty of $25,000 per day for each zoning violation committed.
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron represents Ballyhoo. An attorney for the firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement, Ballyhoo CEO Adam Shapiro said before the company began operations in the city, it discussed its business activities with “numerous law firms” and it was “determined by all parties that we are operating in accordance with all current laws and zoning resolutions.”
“Advertising along the city's waterways is not new activity, Ballyhoo just happens to be the newest. We love the waterways and have developed this platform to be an asset to the community,” Shapiro said.
Related:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
3 minute readUS Courts Announce Closures in Observance of Jimmy Carter National Mourning Day
2 minute readNew York State's 37th Veterans Treatment Court Opens With New Program in Cattaraugus County
Trending Stories
- 1The Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Push Into Law Firms
- 2Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 3'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 4Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 5Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250