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 August 22, 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)

Update: the Supreme Court denied rehearing on August 17, 2026

Verizon asked the Court to reconsider. The Supreme Court's public docket in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 25-567, records a petition for rehearing filed on June 29, 2026, an entry of "Rehearing DENIED" on August 17, 2026, and "Judgment Issued" the same day. That ends the case in the Supreme Court.

The docket carries one administrative wrinkle worth noting for anyone tracking the litigation. A judgment was issued on July 6, 2026 and then withdrawn, the docket stating that it "issued in error." The operative judgment is the one issued on August 17, 2026.

The June 4, 2026 disposition also reads differently across the two consolidated cases. In Verizon's own docket, No. 25-567, the entry reads "Adjudged to be AFFIRMED," while the same entry records that in No. 25-406 the judgment was "REVERSED and case REMANDED." In both, the FCC's authority to impose the forfeitures in-house survived. With rehearing denied, Verizon has no further route in the Supreme Court to press the Seventh Amendment argument.

That does not mean the money moves automatically. As the section below explains, a forfeiture order under 47 U.S.C. section 503(b) is not self-executing: the government must still sue in federal district court under 47 U.S.C. section 504 to collect, and that is where a carrier's jury trial right attaches.

What the Law Actually Says

The conduct that started the case is governed by section 222 of the Communications Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. 222. 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 47 U.S.C. 503(b), the Commission can issue a forfeiture order after its own proceeding. Under 47 U.S.C. 504, 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: 2026-08-22. This is a developing story; details verified as of August 22, 2026.