Supreme Court Upholds FCC Data Privacy Fines in 8-1 Ruling
Supreme Court affirms FCC's authority to enforce $104M fines on AT&T and Verizon.
Why it matters: These rulings clarify federal regulatory powers, guiding counsel and compliance teams in telecom and other regulated sectors on agency enforcement limits under administrative law.
- June 4, 2026 8-1 Supreme Court ruling favored the FCC in enforcing data privacy rules.
- FCC imposed penalties totaling about $104 million on AT&T ($57M) and Verizon ($47M).
- Chief Justice Roberts wrote majority opinion confirming forfeiture proceedings do not breach Seventh Amendment jury rights.
- Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, opposing the majority on enforcement authority.
On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decisive ruling supporting the Federal Communications Commission’s enforcement capabilities against telecommunications giants AT&T and Verizon. Affirming the FCC’s authority, the Court upheld penalties totaling approximately $104 million for the companies’ failures to adequately protect customer location data.
The ruling came down 8-1, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion. Roberts emphasized that the FCC’s forfeiture proceedings—enforcement actions that impose fines without a jury trial—do not violate the Seventh Amendment. This interpretation preserves a regulatory framework Congress has relied on for decades to protect the public interest.
Penalties included $57 million against AT&T and nearly $47 million against Verizon, following findings that both companies sold access to location data without properly safeguarding it. Industry and public interest voices praised the decision. Caroline Flynn, Supreme Court Counsel at Earthjustice, remarked, "The Court upheld a practical, time-tested enforcement structure that Congress relies on to protect the public." Similarly, John Bergmayer, Legal Director at Public Knowledge, criticized the companies' failures: "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 who had no idea they were being followed."
Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter, signaling ongoing debates about the scope of federal agencies’ regulatory powers under administrative law. While the ruling reinforces federal agencies’ authority, the Court’s clarification regarding procedural rights places limits on enforcement actions.
For legal counsel and compliance professionals in regulated industries, especially telecommunications, the decision provides critical guidance. It confirms that regulatory agencies retain robust enforcement tools but also underscores the constitutional boundaries they must respect during proceedings.
By the numbers:
- 8-1 ruling — Supreme Court decision in favor of the FCC
- $57 million — fine imposed on AT&T by the FCC
- $47 million — fine imposed on Verizon by the FCC
Yes, but: Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, reflecting ongoing judicial reluctance about broad agency enforcement authority.