Cybersecurity Policy Report, Sprint, T-Mobile Ask D.C. Circuit to Rehear Ruling on FCC’s Privacy Fines, (Sep 23, 2025)
Organizations Mentioned:AT&T | Sprint Nextel Corp. | T-Mobile US | Verizon Communications
By Paul Kirby
T-Mobile US, Inc., and Sprint Corp. have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the carriers’ challenge of 2024 FCC fines of $80 million and more than $12 million against T-Mobile and Sprint, respectively, for providing to third parties access to customers’ location information without their consent.
Last month, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FCC’s fines (CPR, Aug. 18).
The ruling in Sprint Corp. v. FCC, No. 24-1224 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 15, 2025) created a circuit split in the wake of an April decision by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans) that vacated the FCC’s forfeiture order fining AT&T, Inc., more than $57 million for violating customer proprietary network information (CPNI) protections. The Fifth Circuit last month denied a petition filed by the FCC asking the judges to rehear en banc AT&T’s challenge.
Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit (New York) also affirmed a 2024 FCC fine of nearly $47 million against Verizon Communications, Inc..
The Supreme Court is more likely to take cases when circuits split on issues.
In the petition for a D.C. Circuit panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, T-Mobile and Sprint, which was acquired by T-Mobile, cited the circuit split with the Fifth Circuit in rejecting the carriers’ Seventh Amendment and Article III arguments.
The petition added that the panel also conflicted with Supreme Court precedent when it concluded that device-location information is CPNI, adding that device-location information doesn’t fall within the “location” component of CPNI. It said device-location information wasn’t made available solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship. The petition also argued that the penalties imposed by the Commission exceeded the $2 million statutory maximum “for a ‘single act or failure to act.’”
News: FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataPrivacy