Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Upholds FCC’s Authority to Fine AT&T and Verizon Over Location-Data Violations
6/5/2026, 1:07:47 PM
Background: FCC Investigation and Penalties
In 2024 the Federal Communications Commission concluded that AT&T, Verizon Communications, T-Mobile and Sprint had sold real-time customer location data to third-party aggregators without user consent. The agency issued forfeiture orders totaling $57 million against AT&T, $47 million against Verizon, $80 million against T-Mobile and $12 million against Sprint.
Key Figures and Groups
- AT&T and Verizon Communications – carriers challenging the fines.
- Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – regulator enforcing privacy and anti-robocall rules.
- Chief Justice John Roberts – author of the Supreme Court majority opinion.
- Justice Clarence Thomas – sole dissenter.
- U.S. Courts of Appeals – 5th Circuit (reversed AT&T’s fine) and 2nd Circuit (upheld Verizon’s fine).
- Department of Justice – defended the FCC’s enforcement scheme.
- FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and Commissioner Anna Gómez – agency officials referenced in coverage.
Timeline of Legal Proceedings
- 2018 – FCC investigation uncovers location-data sales.
- 2024 – FCC issues forfeiture orders totaling nearly $200 million.
- 2025 – AT&T pays $57 million; Verizon pays $47 million while filing appeals.
- 2025-2026 – 5th Circuit overturns AT&T’s fine; 2nd Circuit upholds Verizon’s fine, creating a circuit split.
- June 4 2026 – Supreme Court issues an 8-1 decision affirming the FCC’s authority.
Data & Statistics
- AT&T fine: $57 million.
- Verizon fine: $47 million (nearly).
- Total FCC penalties cited: $104 million for AT&T and Verizon combined (source 1) versus nearly $200 million including T-Mobile and Sprint (sources 6, 9).
- Supreme Court vote: 8-1.
Why It Matters: Enforcement and Consumer Privacy
The ruling confirms that an agency may impose preliminary forfeiture orders without immediate jury review, provided a party can later contest collection in court. It preserves a key enforcement tool for the FCC’s privacy, robocall and broadcasting mandates and signals judicial support for agency-led penalties after the 2024 SEC decision limiting in-house sanctions.
Official Statements & Responses
The Court held that the FCC’s forfeiture orders “fit comfortably within” Seventh Amendment precedent because they do not create a binding obligation to pay and parties retain the right to a jury trial if the government pursues collection. The Department of Justice argued the assessments are non-binding and that any enforcement suit would allow a full jury trial. The FCC maintained that its process balances regulatory efficiency with procedural safeguards.
Criticism & Opposition
Justice Thomas dissented, asserting that the carriers “paid under protest” and were punished for complying with orders they believed were obligatory. The carriers contended that the FCC’s in-house proceedings deprived them of a constitutionally guaranteed jury trial and caused reputational harm before a court hearing.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on the total amount of FCC penalties: one report lists $104 million for AT&T and Verizon alone, while others aggregate nearly $200 million including T-Mobile and Sprint. The Court did not address whether carriers may recover the amounts already paid, leaving that question unresolved.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The FCC’s forfeiture proceedings fit comfortably within these precedents,” — Chief Justice John Roberts
- “ He further added, "And the commission's factual findings are not conclusive.” — Chief Justice John Roberts
- “The orders at issue did not settle the carriers’ legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay.” — Chief Justice John Roberts
- “AT&T and Verizon did what courts ordinarily encourage: They paid under protest and filed suit to get their payments back,” — Justice Clarence Thomas
- “If the government were to bring an enforcement action in court, it would allow the companies to make their case before a jury, the lawyers argued.” — Justice Department lawyer
What’s Next
The FCC can now issue forfeiture orders without further constitutional challenge, but carriers must decide whether to contest collection in district court. The Supreme Court’s docket includes other high-profile agency cases, suggesting continued scrutiny of administrative enforcement powers.
