Supreme Court Upholds FCC Fines Over Carrier Location Data (2026)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 on June 4, 2026 that the Federal Communications Commission can fine phone carriers for mishandling customer location data without first holding a jury trial, reinstating nearly $200 million in penalties against AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint under section 222 of the Communications Act.
Information last verified on June 5, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses the federal Communications Act and the Supreme Court decision in FCC v. AT&T. It explains how the FCC penalizes carriers that mishandle customer location data. It does not state the consumer-privacy law of any individual state. For state-level rules, see California data privacy laws.
What Happened
On June 4, 2026, the Supreme Court decided FCC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 25-406, consolidated with Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, No. 25-567. By a vote of 8 to 1, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that the FCC does not violate the Seventh Amendment when it issues a monetary forfeiture order without a jury. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. In a companion case, Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, No. 25-567, the Court affirmed a Second Circuit decision that had upheld the same FCC process.
The dispute traces to April 2024, when the FCC fined the four largest wireless carriers for sharing access to customers location data without adequate consent or safeguards. The FCC penalized AT&T more than $57 million, Verizon almost $47 million, T-Mobile $80 million, and Sprint more than $12 million, nearly $200 million in total. The carriers argued that letting an agency find a violation and assess a penalty in-house, without a jury, was unconstitutional.
The Court disagreed, but on narrow reasoning. A forfeiture order, it held, is not a final judgment. It becomes collectible only if the Department of Justice files suit in federal court.
"A forfeiture order ... is simply the Commission's own determination. Its only legal effect is to enable the Department of Justice to file a suit to recover for the carriers' suspected violations." Chief Justice Roberts, FCC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 25-406 (June 4, 2026)
What the Law Actually Says
The conduct that started the case is governed by section 222 of the Communications Act, codified at . That section requires telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, a category that includes the call-location data generated by a phone connecting to cell towers. The FCC concluded that the carriers sold access to that location data through a chain of data aggregators and location-based service providers, and failed to ensure valid customer consent.
The constitutional question turned on how the FCC collects penalties. Under (b), the Commission can issue a forfeiture order after its own proceeding. Under , that order is not self-executing: if a carrier refuses to pay, the government must sue to recover the forfeiture in federal district court, where the carrier can demand a jury and contest the facts anew. The Court held that this back-end jury trial satisfies the Seventh Amendment, so no jury is required at the agency stage.
That reasoning distinguishes the Court 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), which held that the SEC could not impose civil penalties for securities fraud through in-house adjudication because those penalties were legally binding without a separate court action. The Fifth Circuit had read Jarkesy to doom the FCC process too. The Supreme Court drew the line at finality: because an FCC forfeiture order does not itself bind the carrier, Jarkesy did not control. For how federal agencies handle related data-protection questions, see our overview of AI and data privacy rules and employee data privacy obligations.
Analysis: Why This Matters
The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.
The headline is that the FCC keeps its main tool for policing how carriers handle the location data of nearly every mobile subscriber in the country. After Jarkesy, many observers expected the agency penalty model to keep eroding. This decision marks a boundary: an agency can find a violation and announce a number, so long as the binding part, actual collection, still runs through an Article III court with a jury available. That is a meaningful structural holding that reaches well beyond telecommunications.
For privacy, the substance matters as much as the procedure. The fines rested on the idea that real-time location data is sensitive information a carrier must guard, not a commodity it can resell down a chain of brokers. By reinstating the penalties, the Court left that enforcement theory standing under section 222. We are not predicting how the FCC will use this authority next, or how any particular carrier will fare in a collection suit. What the ruling settles is that the FCC authority to issue these forfeitures is restored, and that the constitutional objection the carriers pressed did not erase it.
How This Affects You
If you carry a mobile phone, this case is about the data your device generates simply by connecting to the network. Federal law treats that location information as confidential customer data your carrier must protect, and the decision keeps the FCC able to penalize carriers that sell access to it improperly. The ruling does not give individuals a new way to sue a carrier directly; section 222 enforcement runs through the FCC and, for collection, the Justice Department.
More broadly, the decision is a reminder that the rules limiting how location data moves are enforced mostly by agencies, not by individual lawsuits. If you want to limit location sharing, the practical levers remain your device settings and the privacy choices your carrier and apps offer, not this federal penalty process. This is general information about how the law works, not advice about your situation.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers the federal Communications Act and the Supreme Court decision in FCC v. AT&T, verified on June 5, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.
Related articles
- AI and data privacy: legal requirements
- California data privacy laws: CCPA and CPRA
- Employee data privacy obligations by state
- US laws hub
Last updated: 2026-06-05. This is a developing story; details verified as of June 5, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide in FCC v. AT&T?
On June 4, 2026, the Court ruled 8 to 1 that the FCC may issue monetary forfeiture orders without a jury, because such orders are not final until the Department of Justice sues to collect them in federal court, where a jury is available.
Why were AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint fined?
In April 2024 the FCC fined the carriers nearly $200 million combined for selling access to customers real-time location data without adequate consent or safeguards, which the agency found violated section 222 of the Communications Act.
Does this mean carriers have no right to a jury?
No. The Court held that carriers keep a jury-trial right, but it arises later, in the federal court suit the Justice Department must file to actually collect a forfeiture if a carrier refuses to pay.
How is this different from SEC v. Jarkesy?
In Jarkesy (2024) the SEC penalties were legally binding through in-house adjudication. The Court held that FCC forfeiture orders are not binding on their own, so they do not trigger the same Seventh Amendment problem.
Can I sue my carrier for selling my location data?
This decision does not create a private right of action under section 222. Enforcement of that section runs through the FCC and the Justice Department rather than through individual lawsuits.
What is customer location data under federal law?
Section 222 protects customer proprietary network information, which includes the location data a phone generates by connecting to cell towers. Carriers must keep that information confidential.
Updates
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 3 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 47
§ 222Privacy of customer informationIn force
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier. A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts. Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 125 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Carpenter v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2018, 585 U.S. 296) · Federal Trade Commission v. Accusearch Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2009, 570 F.3d 1187) · U.S. West, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1999, 182 F.3d 1224)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 503ForfeituresIn force
Any person who shall deliver messages for interstate or foreign transmission to any carrier, or for whom as sender or receiver, any such carrier shall transmit any interstate or foreign wire or radio communication, who shall knowingly by employee, agent, officer, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, by or through any means or device whatsoever, receive or accept from such common carrier any sum of money or any other valuable consideration as a rebate or offset against the regular charges for transmission of such messages as fixed by the schedules of charges provided for in this chapter, shall in addition to any other penalty provided by this chapter forfeit to the United States a sum of money three times the amount of money so received or accepted and three times the value of any other consideration so received or accepted, to be ascertained by the trial court; and in the trial of said action all such rebates or other considerations so received or accepted for a period of six years prior to the commencement of the action, may be included therein, and the amount recovered shall be three times the total amount of money, or three times the total value of such consideration, so…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 106 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 2012, 567 U.S. 239) · Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 2007, 550 U.S. 45) · Illinois Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1975, 515 F.2d 397)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 504ForfeituresIn force
The forfeitures provided for in this chapter shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be recoverable, except as otherwise provided with respect to a forfeiture penalty determined under section 503(b)(3) of this title, in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the district where the person or carrier has its principal operating office or in any district through which the line or system of the carrier runs: Provided, That any suit for the recovery of a forfeiture imposed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be a trial de novo: Provided further, That in the case of forfeiture by a ship, said forfeiture may also be recoverable by way of libel in any district in which such ship shall arrive or depart. Such forfeitures shall be in addition to any other general or specific penalties provided in this chapter. It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, to prosecute for the recovery of forfeitures under this chapter. The costs and expenses of such prosecutions shall be paid from the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 68 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Illinois Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1975, 515 F.2d 397) · Action for Children's Television v. Federal Communications Commission (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1995, 59 F.3d 1249) · United States v. Baxter (District Court, D. Maine 2012, 841 F. Supp. 2d 378)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- FCC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 25-406 (U.S. June 4, 2026), slip opinion (consolidated with Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, No. 25-567)(supremecourt.gov).gov
- FCC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 25-406, opinion text via Cornell Legal Information Institute(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC, Fines Largest Wireless Carriers for Sharing Location Data (April 2024), forfeiture orders against AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint(fcc.gov).gov
- 47 U.S.C. 222, privacy of customer proprietary network information (Communications Act, section 222)(law.cornell.edu)
- 47 U.S.C. 504, recovery of forfeitures in federal district court(law.cornell.edu)
- SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), Seventh Amendment limits on in-house agency penalties(law.cornell.edu)
- SCOTUSblog, Court rules against cell-service providers over right to jury trial in FCC proceedings (June 4, 2026), corroborating coverage(scotusblog.com)