Supreme Court upholds FCC process for fining AT&T and Verizon over customer location data

Thursday, June 4, 2026Technology & SocietyWell-covered5 frames

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the FCC in the dispute with AT&T and Verizon over the agency's fine process.
AT&T and Verizon argued that the FCC's in-house forfeiture process violated their constitutional right to a jury trial.
The case arose from FCC penalties against AT&T and Verizon over the carriers' handling of customer location data, including findings that they sold or shared access to that data without proper customer consent or protection.
The FCC penalties at issue were about $57 million for AT&T and about $47 million for Verizon, for a combined total of more than $100 million.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.
The court said the FCC's forfeiture orders do not themselves create a binding obligation to pay, and that enforcement would require further court action, which was central to the court's conclusion that the process does not violate the jury-trial right.
The ruling preserves an FCC enforcement mechanism with implications beyond this case, including the agency's ability to enforce rules involving consumer privacy, robocalls, and broadcasting.
The decision resolves a legal challenge that tested how far recent Supreme Court limits on agency adjudication might extend, but the sources indicate the FCC's process survives here because its orders are not treated as final, self-executing penalties.

How left and right are reading this

Both agree: The ruling preserves an FCC enforcement tool in a case over carriers’ handling of customer location data, while resting on the limit that any binding payment still requires further court action rather than an immediately enforceable agency penalty.
They split on: Less a disagreement than a question of emphasis: preserving a practical enforcement mechanism for privacy, robocalls, and broadcasting, versus underscoring that the mechanism survives only because courts, not the agency alone, impose any binding payment obligation.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the FCC in the dispute with AT&T and Verizon over the agency's fine process.
AT&T and Verizon argued that the FCC's in-house forfeiture process violated their constitutional right to a jury trial.
The case arose from FCC penalties against AT&T and Verizon over the carriers' handling of customer location data, including findings that they sold or shared access to that data without proper customer consent or protection.
The FCC penalties at issue were about $57 million for AT&T and about $47 million for Verizon, for a combined total of more than $100 million.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.
The court said the FCC's forfeiture orders do not themselves create a binding obligation to pay, and that enforcement would require further court action, which was central to the court's conclusion that the process does not violate the jury-trial right.
The ruling preserves an FCC enforcement mechanism with implications beyond this case, including the agency's ability to enforce rules involving consumer privacy, robocalls, and broadcasting.
The decision resolves a legal challenge that tested how far recent Supreme Court limits on agency adjudication might extend, but the sources indicate the FCC's process survives here because its orders are not treated as final, self-executing penalties.