Bounty hunters tracking your location through carrier data shouldn’t be possible, yet AT&T and Verizon made it routine. The Supreme Court just ruled 8-1 that the FCC’s process for imposing $104 million in fines over this privacy scandal passes constitutional muster—preserving a crucial tool for protecting your digital privacy.
The Privacy Betrayal That Started It All
Major carriers sold customer location data that trickled down to stalkers and rogue officials.
AT&T and Verizon didn’t just sell access to customer location data—they failed to prevent that information from reaching bounty hunters and even a sheriff who used it to track people without their knowledge. The carriers set up data-sharing agreements with aggregators who then sold real-time location access to anyone willing to pay.
Your phone became a tracking device for hire, and the carriers collected profits while you remained oblivious. The FCC investigated after these abuses surfaced in 2018, ultimately fining the carriers a combined $104 million. Public Knowledge’s John Bergmayer noted that AT&T and Verizon “sold access to their customers’ location data, then failed to stop bounty hunters and even a rogue sheriff from using it to track people.”
The Constitutional Gambit That Failed
Carriers claimed the FCC’s fine process violated their right to jury trials.
Rather than accept responsibility, AT&T and Verizon launched a constitutional challenge. Both carriers argued the FCC violated their Seventh Amendment right to jury trials by imposing massive civil penalties through internal proceedings. The companies claimed they were forced to pay first and challenge later—a process they characterized as “prosecutor, jury, and judge” rolled into one.
Federal appeals courts split on the issue. The 5th Circuit agreed with AT&T, while the 2nd Circuit sided with the FCC against Verizon. This circuit split brought the case to the Supreme Court.
How the Two-Step Process Actually Works
The Court clarified that FCC fines aren’t final until carriers either pay or lose in court.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the 8-1 majority, explained that the FCC’s forfeiture orders function more like indictments than final judgments. When the agency “fines” a carrier, it’s issuing a formal notice that the government intends to collect—but carriers can force the issue to a jury trial by refusing to pay.
This distinguishes the FCC’s process from the SEC’s penalties in the recent Jarkesy case, where agency fines were immediately enforceable. Justice Thomas, the lone dissenter, argued that the FCC historically treated its orders as binding.
The ruling preserves the FCC’s ability to investigate privacy violations, publicly propose large penalties, and either collect from compliant carriers or prove violations to juries when companies resist. For your location privacy, that means the agency retains its most effective deterrent against future data-selling schemes.
