A second major record company has reached a settlement with the New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, to resolve accusations that it made payoffs to persuade radio programmers to play certain songs, the attorney general said yesterday.

The $5 million settlement with the Warner Music Group, the nation's third-biggest record company, was the latest in Mr. Spitzer's widening investigation, which has exposed payments to radio programmers in exchange for playing music and routine manipulation of playlist information.

In July, Sony BMG Music Entertainment reached an agreement with Mr. Spitzer. The two record companies that have not settled - the Universal Music Group, a unit of Vivendi Universal, and the EMI Group - remain under investigation, as do many big radio chains, according to people involved in the inquiry.

Warner acknowledged yesterday that certain employees had pursued radio promotion practices that were "wrong or improper," and apologized. In a separate statement, the company added that "we consider this to have been a valuable process."

"From our perspective, radio cannot be too consumer-driven. The music that people hear on the radio always should represent the highest quality the industry has to offer."

Mr. Spitzer said that Warner executives had obtained play time for songs through "deceptive and illegal" practices, including making payoffs in the form of personal electronics and tickets to the Grammy Awards, the World Series and the Super Bowl.

Warner executives also tried to land their artists on playlists by paying for a station's daily operations, Mr. Spitzer said. He cited examples of the record company's covering the cost of painting a station logo on a promotional vehicle, the production of a station "jingle," and the costs of hiring a voiceover talent.

Warner, which counts acts like Green Day and Twista on its artist roster, also provided an array of "promotional" items for use in listener contests and giveaways, a practice company executives described as "an industry standard."

Indeed, Mr. Spitzer's investigation has shown that it is common for record executives to link the amount of promotional support provided to a station to the amount of play time. In February 2004, when Z-100, the New York pop music powerhouse, requested the record company pay for a listener trip to Los Angeles or Glasgow as the grand prize in a contest, a Warner executive wrote to another: "With the record in power, I feel we should do one of these for them. Can we approve this?"

Clear Channel Communications, the parent of Z-100 and several other stations cited by Mr. Spitzer, said in a statement: "We take this issue very seriously and have zero tolerance for pay for play. Any employees who violate this policy will be dealt with accordingly. We investigate any allegation of improper conduct by our employees. This is no exception."

The company, the nation's biggest radio broadcaster, fired two programming executives last month after a review by the attorney general's investigation.

Under the agreement announced yesterday, Warner will pay $5 million, to be distributed to nonprofit organizations that finance music education and appreciation. The company will also pay $50,000 to cover the costs of the inquiry.

Warner also agreed to an array of changes that mirror those set out in a deal Mr. Spitzer reached with Sony BMG, which agreed to pay $10 million. Warner, like Sony BMG, also agreed to end its use of certain independent promoters, middlemen who are paid by the company to press programmers to add songs. And the company agreed to limits on the efforts its executives can undertake to market its artists.

Mr. Spitzer said in an interview: "In this case, as in others, the acceptance and tolerance of paying for airtime is what has surprised us. It was routine."

He also criticized the Federal Communications Commission, which he said had displayed a "disappointing" lack of action in dealing with the radio broadcasters under its jurisdiction since the New York inquiry became public. The agency announced shortly after Mr. Spitzer's first settlement that it would start its own inquiry.

Despite e-mail messages and other evidence that appear to point to widespread violations of the federal law, Mr. Spitzer said broadcasters did not seem worried about the prospect that the F.C.C. could impose its toughest penalty, revoking a station's license.

"Because the notion of license revocation is so clearly discounted, nobody is terribly concerned about the consequences of the F.C.C.'s involvement," Mr. Spitzer said. "That's too bad, because what's at stake here is the airwaves. Why the F.C.C. is not responding is a little mysterious to me."

One F.C.C. commissioner, Jonathan S. Adelstein, also pressed for deeper involvement, saying the agency "needs to act on this evidence and conclude as soon as possible" its own inquiry. Mr. Adelstein said the practices Mr. Spitzer illuminated appeared to reflect "the most widespread and systematic abuse of F.C.C. rules in the history of American broadcasting."

An F.C.C. spokesman declined to comment on the status of the investigation, but said "three months is not a long period for investigations."