Cybersecurity Policy Report, Supreme Court Upholds FCC’s Location-Data Enforcement, (Jun 4, 2026)

By Lynn Stanton

The Supreme Court today, in an 8-1 decision, upheld two FCC forfeiture orders against AT&T, Inc., and Verizon Communications, Inc., for violating CPNI (customer proprietary network information) protections by providing location data to third parties without customers’ consent.

The cases, combined as FCC et al. v. AT&T, Inc. (case 25-406), stem from FCC forfeiture orders issued in 2024 fining T-Mobile US, Inc., AT&T, and Verizon nearly $200 million “for illegally sharing access to customers’ location information without consent and without taking reasonable measures to protect that information against unauthorized disclosure” (CPR, April 29, 2024).

The 2024 orders followed notices of apparently liability issued in 2020 during the tenure of former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai against the then-four nationwide wireless carriers. Then Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington dissented from the 2024 orders, but as Chairman, Mr. Carr has defended the FCC’s authority to issue such orders.

Last spring, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans) vacated the FCC’s order fining AT&T more than $57 million. The Fifth Circuit had cited the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that an SEC in-house enforcement action deprived parties of their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and that the SEC case “did not fall within the ‘public rights’ exception, which would let Congress assign certain matters to an agency instead of an Article III court.”

Late last summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York) affirmed the FCC’s 2024 nearly $47 million forfeiture order against Verizon, distinguishing the FCC order from the SEC’s in Jarkesy by saying that the FCC’s order “does not, by itself, compel payment. The government needs to initiate a collection action to do that.”

The FCC also found T-Mobile and the former Sprint Corp. (now part of T-Mobile) liable for forfeitures of $80 million and more than $12 million, respectively, for similar actions regarding customers’ location information and challenged the FCC orders in court. Last year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the FCC’s fines on T-Mobile and Sprint, and the circuit court subsequently denied T-Mobile’s request for a panel or en banc rehearing.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, distinguished the AT&T and Verizon cases from SEC v. Jarkesy, because companies can refuse to pay a forfeiture and, if the government chooses to seek to have the order enforced by the courts, have the question of their violations judged de novo in a jury trial, thus satisfying the guarantee under the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the right to a jury trial in cases where the value in controversy exceeds $20.

In this case, the carriers paid the forfeiture and challenged the orders in their respective circuit courts pursuant to the process established by the Hobbs Act, leading to conflicting rulings by the Fifth and Second circuits, Chief Justice Roberts noted.

“Forfeiture orders issued under §503(b)(4) [of the Communications Act] do not definitively resolve the parties’ legal obligations. And the Commission’s factual findings are not conclusive. It thus does not offend the Constitution for the Commission to issue forfeiture orders without the involvement of a jury,” the chief justice wrote, FCC et al. v. AT&T, Inc., No. 25-406 (U.S. June 4, 2026).

“Refusing to take yes for an answer, the carriers insist that they actually must pay. … [but] the Commission is powerless to visit any adverse consequences on a regulated party who receives a forfeiture order,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

“The carriers next insist that this case is SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U. S. 109 (2024), all over again. But Jarkesy only proves our point. There, we held that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could not impose civil penalties using its in-house administrative process. Those penalties were immediately enforceable; the SEC could garnish the recipient’s wages or deduct a portion of the forfeiture from his tax return. See 17 CFR §§204.50, 204.52, 204.54–204.56, 204.60–204.65 (2024). And if the SEC were required to resort to judicial means of enforcement, no jury was available—at least as to the underlying legal violation,” he continued.

“Finally, the carriers argue that FCC forfeiture orders cause reputational and practical harms entitling them to a jury. Brief for AT&T, Inc., et al. 35–36 (Brief for the Carriers). They contend that the Seventh Amendment applies to such harms, ‘even where no money is at stake.’ Id., at 35. This argument is hard to square with the text of the Seventh Amendment, which applies only to suits ‘where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.’ See 156 F. 4th, at 106 (‘we fail to see how [reputational harm] implicate[s] the Seventh Amendment, which requires a jury trial only upon an effort to collect payment of monetary damages’ (citing Jarkesy, 603 U. S., at 123)).

“Textual implausibility aside, the carriers’ theory proves too much. Reputational harm may befall any party in the preliminary stage of a legal proceeding,” he added.

Chief Justice Roberts also rejected the carriers’ claim that they were presented with “an impermissible choice” between paying the forfeitures before challenging the orders in circuit court and declining to pay and waiting for a government “enforcement suit that may never come.”

“[T]he carriers are not impermissibly coerced into forgoing their right to a jury,” as the FCC’s ability to reach the same findings in a future case does not depend on the status of the unresolved forfeiture, he said.

In addition, “[i]f the ‘certainty or probability’ of an increased prison term upon conviction does not impermissibly burden the Sixth Amendment right [in a plea deal], it is hard to see how the uncertain prospect of reputational harm unduly burdens the Seventh Amendment right,” he added.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said, “The Court agrees with AT&T and Verizon that they were entitled to a jury trial de novo before an Article III court before they could be forced to pay. It agrees that they did not in fact receive such a jury trial de novo. But, it rules in favor of the Commission. The Court does so because the Commission, after AT&T and Verizon paid it over $100 million, took the position that its orders were not really binding after all. The Commission now agrees that AT&T and Verizon would have been entitled to a jury trial de novo in an Article III court had they declined to pay. Because its orders were not binding until after that jury trial, the Commission says, AT&T and Verizon in reality paid the Commission voluntarily. The Court accepts that account and does not grant the carriers any relief. Because I would give the parties an opportunity to proceed under a correct understanding of the law, I respectfully dissent.”

In a statement, Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer said, “The Supreme Court got this one right. 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. The FCC investigated, found the carriers liable, and proposed penalties—which the carriers were always free to challenge in court.

“Instead, the carriers tried to dodge all accountability by claiming the FCC’s established process denied them a jury trial. But as the Court held today, this was just not true. Carriers could have refused to pay and demanded a jury in federal court,” Mr. Bergmayer added.

“This decision keeps the FCC able to do the job Congress gave it. An agency that cannot investigate carriers and propose penalties would lose one of its best tools for protecting consumers and enforcing the law,” he concluded.

News: FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataPrivacy