The Supreme Court denied Verizon's petition for a $47 million refund of an FCC fine. The Supreme Court denied the petition without explanation.

Verizon argued that the Court's disposition unfairly isolates it from other carriers who retain paths to challenge the open question of whether device-location data is protected under federal privacy law. "For Verizon only, this Court’s disposition threatens to foreclose the very question that it purported to leave open," Verizon’s petition said.

The company noted that AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint are subject to nearly verbatim FCC orders issued simultaneously with its own. "The other three carriers that are subject to nearly verbatim FCC orders, all issued simultaneously, each have paths to argue the question that this Court ‘express[ed] no view on’ in footnote 5 of its opinion," the petition stated. Verizon contended that without intervention, it would be the sole carrier unable to pursue further legal arguments on the underlying privacy statute.

"But short of extraordinary relief like recalling the Second Circuit’s mandate, Verizon alone will be out of luck," the filing said. Verizon urged the justices to modify their previous ruling to allow the case to return to the lower court. "This Court should amend its disposition to avoid that result," the company wrote.

Verizon proposed a specific procedural adjustment to align its status with its competitors. "A tiny dispositional change—affirming, but with a remand—would put Verizon on equal footing with AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint, and permit Verizon to ask the Second Circuit to take up the issue that this Court purported to leave open," Verizon told the Supreme Court.

The dispute stems from FCC forfeiture orders penalizing major carriers for selling customer location data. The carriers sold device-location information to data aggregators who resold it to other firms. The FCC also fined AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint for the same kind of violation. The carriers paid the fines and sought to have them overturned in courts, claiming their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial was violated.

Challenges by AT&T and Verizon were combined into a single case before the high court. The Supreme Court ruled against the carriers in June of this year. The ruling against the carriers was 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting. The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC penalty process does not violate the Seventh Amendment because the carriers could have obtained jury trials if they refused to pay the fines and waited for the government to try to collect.

Verizon lost in the 2nd Circuit prior to the Supreme Court review. A three-judge panel at the 2nd Circuit unanimously ruled against Verizon. The 2nd Circuit rejected Verizon’s Seventh Amendment claim and its claim that selling the location data was legal. He claimed the privacy rules in Section 222 of the Communications Act cover only call-location data, and not device-location data.

The appellate court disagreed with Verizon's interpretation of the statute. The 2nd Circuit pointed to the law’s text stating that Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) includes data that is related to the location of a telecommunications service, and which is made available to the carrier solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship. “It thus qualifies as customer proprietary network information and triggers the privacy protections set forth in § 222 of the Communications Act,” the ruling said.

The 2nd Circuit ruling described how Verizon sold location data to two aggregators, LocationSmart and Zumigo, “which in turn contracted with 63 third-party entities.” The court also noted security risks associated with the data sales. News reporting showed that Securus Technologies misused the program to let law enforcement officers access location data, and a Missouri sheriff “was able to access customer data with no legal process at all,” the ruling said.

Verizon criticized the regulatory agency for shifting its legal stance during the litigation. He said the FCC presented the fine as binding in 2024 but then “retreated over the course of this proceeding, changing positions and ultimately telling this Court that FCC forfeiture orders do not ‘compel payment.’”

Other carriers continue to litigate similar penalties. AT&T and T-Mobile are continuing to challenge similar fines. The Supreme Court remanded AT&T's case to the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The 5th Circuit previously ruled in AT&T’s favor. The 5th Circuit ruling in AT&T’s favor was decided solely on Seventh Amendment grounds and did not reach AT&T’s other arguments. After its Supreme Court loss, AT&T filed a brief urging the 5th Circuit to find that the customer data it sold is not protected by Section 222.

T-Mobile and its Sprint subsidiary lost in the District of Columbia Circuit in 2025. T-Mobile is asking the Supreme Court for a review. T-Mobile asked the Supreme Court to find that the location information protected under the law “refers only to call-location information, not other information about the location of a mobile device.” The major carriers still claim the fines were illegal.

Regulatory officials have expressed differing views on the scope of the privacy rules. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr argued against the fines in 2024 when the commission was led by a Democratic majority. Brendan Carr agreed with carriers that only call location information is protected.

Why It Matters

The denial leaves Verizon as the only major carrier without a path to challenge the underlying privacy ruling regarding device-location data. While AT&T and T-Mobile retain avenues to argue whether Section 222 of the Communications Act applies to general device location, Verizon's case is closed. This creates a disparate legal outcome for carriers subject to nearly identical FCC orders issued simultaneously.

The case centers on the definition of Customer Proprietary Network Information and the procedural rights of companies facing federal fines. The Supreme Court's earlier decision resolved the Seventh Amendment jury trial question but left open the statutory interpretation of what data is protected. Verizon's exclusion from further review means it cannot join its competitors in seeking a definitive ruling on whether the privacy law covers only call-location data or broader device-tracking information.

Timeline

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr argued against the fines in 2024 when the commission was led by a Democratic majority. On December 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of Alabama issued a notice regarding Ex parte Joshua Lashawn Booth PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Alabama Department of Corrections v. Joshua Lashawn Booth) (Bibb Circuit Court: CV-22-900034; Court of Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0426). T-Mobile and its Sprint subsidiary lost in the District of Columbia Circuit in 2025.

What's New

A study titled The Supreme Court Weighs in on Local Exchange Competition: The Meta-Message was published in 2002 in Review of Network Economics.