SCOTUS Rules Against AT&T, Verizon Over Fines For Selling Location Data

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday against AT&T and Verizon in a major case involving federal penalties tied to the sale and misuse of Americans’ real-time location data.

In an 8-1 decision, the justices held that the Federal Communications Commission’s enforcement process does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial. The ruling preserves the FCC’s ability to impose financial penalties through its administrative enforcement system and marks a significant victory for federal regulators policing privacy violations in the telecommunications industry.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter, according to ARSTechnica.

The case arrived at the Supreme Court after federal appeals courts split over whether the FCC’s penalty process could survive constitutional scrutiny.

AT&T had persuaded the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out an FCC fine, arguing that the agency’s process improperly bypassed a jury. Verizon, however, lost a similar challenge in the 2nd Circuit. The conflicting rulings set the stage for Supreme Court review.

The justices ultimately sided with the FCC and overturned the 5th Circuit’s ruling.

The decision strengthens the federal government’s authority to impose administrative penalties on companies accused of violating telecommunications and privacy laws. It also narrows a constitutional challenge that could have severely limited the enforcement powers of federal regulatory agencies.

The dispute traces back to $104 million in FCC fines imposed on AT&T and Verizon in 2024 over allegations that the companies mishandled customers’ real-time location data. The underlying conduct was first exposed in 2018, ARSTechnica noted.

After paying the penalties, both companies challenged the FCC’s enforcement framework in federal court. They argued that the agency’s process violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Under the FCC system, companies may pay a fine and then seek review in the federal appeals courts instead of having the case first decided by a jury.

The carriers argued that this deprived them of a constitutional safeguard in civil cases involving substantial financial penalties.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, rejected that argument. He concluded that the companies were not denied access to a jury trial because another path remained open to them.

According to the Court, AT&T and Verizon could have refused to pay the fines and forced the government to bring collection actions. That process, the majority said, could have ultimately led to a jury trial.

“The FCC’s forfeiture proceedings fit comfortably within” the Supreme Court’s Seventh Amendment precedents, Roberts wrote.

“The orders at issue did not settle the carriers’ legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay,” he went on.

“And the orders did not reflect the ultimate determination of any fact because, before the carriers could have been made to pay, the Government was required to prove its case to a jury,” said the chief justice.

The result appeared to be foreshadowed during oral arguments, when several justices seemed skeptical of the carriers’ constitutional claims. Some suggested that FCC penalty orders do not become legally binding unless the government asks a court to enforce them.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also suggested that AT&T and Verizon had already secured an important legal concession from the government.

He noted that federal officials acknowledged FCC penalty orders are not self-executing nonbinding sans a jury trial.

“It seems like you’ve won on the law going forward, one way or the other,” Kavanaugh told the attorney representing the carriers, per ARSTechnica.

Public Knowledge legal director John Bergmayer praised the ruling and framed the case as a necessary defense of consumer privacy.

“The Supreme Court got this one right,” Bergmayer said in a press release.

“AT&T and Verizon sold access to their customers’ location data, then failed to stop bounty hunters and even a rogue sheriff from using it to track people who had no idea they were being followed,” he added.

“The FCC investigated, found the carriers liable, and proposed penalties—which the carriers were always free to challenge in court,” he said, noting further: “This decision keeps the FCC able to do the job Congress gave it.”

The ruling is likely to carry implications beyond AT&T and Verizon. It protects the FCC’s current enforcement model and gives regulators more room to pursue companies accused of abusing sensitive consumer data.

For conservatives, the decision presents a familiar constitutional tension. On one hand, Americans should be wary of unelected agencies expanding their power beyond clear congressional authority. On the other hand, corporations that profit from private customer data should not be allowed to evade accountability when that information is allegedly exposed to bounty hunters, rogue officials, or other bad actors.

The Court’s majority concluded that the FCC’s process remained within constitutional bounds because companies still had a route to judicial review and a potential jury trial before being forced to pay.

That distinction proved decisive.

AT&T and Verizon sought to limit the FCC’s administrative enforcement power. Instead, the Supreme Court gave federal regulators a clear victory while leaving intact the principle that companies may still challenge government penalties in court.