Phone companies can collect some of the most sensitive information about their customers, such as their locations.
That happens because cellphones repeatedly connect to nearby cell towers as they operate.
The Supreme Court noted that each connection can register a phone’s location, giving wireless carriers a strong sense of where a customer’s phone is at a given time.
This information supports useful services, including roadside assistance. But often it can become far more sensitive when access moves beyond the phone company and into the hands of outside businesses.
The protection and use of sensitive personal data, such as location information, is sacrosanct.
Further noting, “When placed in the wrong hands or used for nefarious purposes, it puts all of us at risk.” This makes safeguarding “customer location data and valid consent for its use” a top priority for the FCC.
That concern is now at the center of a major Supreme Court ruling involving AT&T and Verizon, two of the biggest names in the telecommunications sector.
The Supreme Court on June 4 sided with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in a case over whether the agency can issue large penalties against wireless carriers through its own enforcement process.
In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled that the FCC did not violate the Constitution when it issued forfeiture orders against AT&T and Verizon over their handling of customer location data.
The ruling is a win for the FCC and a setback for the phone giants, which argued that the agency’s process deprived them of their right to a jury trial.
For consumers, the case matters because it grew out of a simple privacy question: what happens when companies that hold real-time location data fail to properly protect it?
FCC fined AT&T and Verizon over customer location data
The original case began with an FCC investigation into the nation’s largest wireless carriers.
In April 2024, the FCC fined AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint nearly $200 million combined for illegally sharing access to customers’ location information.
The FCC said the carriers shared access to that data without customer consent and without taking reasonable measures to protect it from unauthorized disclosure.
In lieu of these findings, the FCC charged the communications providers:
- AT&T was fined more than $57 million.
- Verizon was fined almost $47 million.
- T-Mobile was fined more than $80 million.
- Sprint was fined more than $12 million.
Sprint and T-Mobile have merged since the investigation.
More Retail:
- Another mall retailer quietly closed over 150 locations
- Ultra wealthy shoppers flock to this 63-year-old rugged retailer
- 72-year-old mall retailers to close more stores in 2026
The FCC said each carrier sold access to customers’ location information to “aggregators,” who then resold it to third-party location-based service providers.
The agency said the carriers tried to shift their obligation to obtain customer consent onto downstream companies.
In many cases, according to the FCC, that meant no valid customer consent was obtained.
The FCC also said the carriers continued selling access to customer location information even after learning their safeguards were not working.
That is why the case was not just about whether location-based services can be useful. It was about who gets access to that information, whether customers agreed to it, and whether phone companies kept control of the data after sharing it.
Shutterstock
Why location data is so sensitive
Location data is different from many other types of consumer information.
A stolen password can be changed. A compromised credit card can be replaced. But a person’s movements can reveal patterns about daily life that are far harder to separate from the person.
Real-time location information can show where someone lives, works, shops, worships, seeks medical care, or spends time with family.
The FCC called customer location information some of the most sensitive data in carriers’ possession. The agency said communications providers have an obligation to protect that information because it can reveal where customers go and who they are.
“Our communications providers have access to some of the most sensitive information about us. These carriers failed to protect the information entrusted to them. Here, we are talking about some of the most sensitive data in their possession: customers’ real-time location information, revealing where they go and who they are,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.
Related: Verizon CEO sends shocking message to employees
The FCC’s investigation followed public reports that customer location information was disclosed without consent or legal authorization.
The Supreme Court opinion described one incident involving a Missouri sheriff who accessed “location of numerous individuals” through a location-finding service operated by Securus, a provider of communications services to correctional facilities.
For consumers, that is the core concern. Many people know their phone company needs some location information to provide service. Fewer expect that access to that information could move through a chain of outside companies.
AT&T and Verizon challenged the FCC’s process
AT&T and Verizon challenged the FCC penalties in court.
Their argument was not only about the privacy allegations. They also argued that the FCC’s process violated the Seventh Amendment, which protects the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases.
The companies said the FCC had investigated the case, found the facts, and imposed penalties without first giving them a jury trial.
Lower courts split on the issue.
The Fifth Circuit sided with AT&T and vacated the FCC’s order. It said the FCC’s process violated the Seventh Amendment because the agency had already found the facts and imposed punishment without a jury.
The Second Circuit ruled against Verizon. It said an FCC forfeiture order does not, in itself, require a company to pay. If a company refuses to pay, the government must bring a separate civil lawsuit to collect the money.
Now, in a June 4, 2026, decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the second view.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that FCC forfeiture orders do not definitively resolve a company’s legal obligations.
In plain language, the FCC can say a company violated the law and assess a penalty, but it cannot collect the money on its own if the company refuses to pay.
To collect, the government must go to court. In that later case, the company can contest the facts again.
That distinction allowed the FCC’s system to survive.
What the ruling means for consumers
The decision keeps an important privacy enforcement tool in place.
A ruling against the FCC could have made it harder for the agency to bring major penalty cases against telecom companies, broadcasters, internet providers, and other businesses covered by communications law.
Instead, the Supreme Court said the FCC can continue issuing forfeiture orders because those orders are not the final word unless a company pays or the government wins in court.
For companies, the ruling still leaves room to fight. A business can refuse to pay and make the government sue to collect.
But for consumers, the practical effect is that the FCC remains able to bring public enforcement actions when it believes phone companies mishandled sensitive customer data.
The ruling does not create a direct payout for phone users. It also does not mean the Supreme Court decided whether AT&T or Verizon actually violated privacy rules.
But it does preserve the government’s ability to hold carriers accountable when customer data practices raise serious privacy concerns.
Justice Thomas dissented
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only justice to dissent.
Thomas said AT&T and Verizon had already paid more than $100 million after receiving FCC orders that appeared to require payment.
He argued that the companies should have had a clearer chance to proceed under the correct understanding of the law.
The majority did not decide whether AT&T or Verizon is entitled to a refund or what relief may be available.
For now, the ruling keeps the FCC’s enforcement process intact, but it does not end the dispute entirely. The Court remanded AT&T’s case to the lower court and did not decide whether AT&T or Verizon can recover the penalties they have already paid.
This case may sound technical, but the consumer issue is simple.
Wireless carriers sit between people and their digital lives. They connect calls, texts, apps, maps, payments, and emergency services. In doing so, they can collect information that shows where people are in the real world.
The Supreme Court’s ruling means the FCC can still act when it believes that information has been mishandled.
That matters because most consumers cannot see how their location data moves once it leaves their phone company.
For cellphone users, the case is a reminder that privacy risks are not limited to hackers breaking into a database. Sometimes the bigger question is what companies are allowed to share, who they share it with, and whether customers ever truly agreed to it.
Related: Major gas, energy company files for bankruptcy