Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • Cyber Enforcement Efforts Downsized, Refocused at SEC
    • After Massive Breach, Data Broker Faces Small Fine in California
    • Agencies Warn of Ransomware Exploiting Unpatched Systems
    • FCC Urged to Reverse CALEA Cybersecurity Action
    • Fintech group urges changes to proposed California automation and privacy rule
    • Oklahoma Bill to Protect Children’s Personal Data Advances
    • Poland Updates Data Breach Guidance
    • S.D. Cal.: California court allows some privacy claims against online pharmacy to proceed, dismisses others
    • T-Mobile Rejects FCC Arguments in Location Information Sharing Cases
    • TechFreedom Opposes CPPA’s Proposed ADMT Rules
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Cybersecurity Policy Report, T-Mobile Rejects FCC Arguments in Location Information Sharing Cases, (Feb 20, 2025)

    Organizations Mentioned:AT&T | Sprint Nextel Corp. | T-Mobile US | Verizon | Verizon Communications

    By Paul Kirby

    T-Mobile US, Inc., has rejected the FCC’s defense of its decision to impose fines of $80 million against T-Mobile and more than $12 million against Sprint Corp., which was acquired by T-Mobile, “for illegally sharing access to customers ...

    By Paul Kirby

    T-Mobile US, Inc., has rejected the FCC’s defense of its decision to impose fines of $80 million against T-Mobile and more than $12 million against Sprint Corp., which was acquired by T-Mobile, “for illegally sharing access to customers’ location information without consent and without taking reasonable measures to protect that information against unauthorized disclosure.”

    On 3-2 votes over the dissents of Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington, the Commission took the action last year (CPR, April 29, 2024). In all, the FCC adopted forfeiture orders fining T-Mobile (including Sprint), AT&T, Inc., and Verizon Communications, Inc., nearly $200 million. The orders against Verizon and AT&T are on appeal to the Second and Fifth Circuits, respectively.

    In a Petitioners’ Reply Brief in Sprint Corp., T-Mobile USA, Inc., v. FCC, Nos. 24-1224 and 24-1225 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2025) responding to the FCC’s brief filed last month, T-Mobile (including Sprint) said the FCC’s order violated the Seventh Amendment and Article III of the Constitution, adding that civil penalties require a jury trial in an Article III court.

    The petitioners also argued that the Commission’s orders exceeded its authority, adding that the location component of customer propriety network information (CPNI) only covers call-location information. The filing also said that the orders were arbitrary and capricious because the carriers used reasonable measures to protect customer information.

    News: FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataPrivacy

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use