Supreme Court sides with FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines
Source: Reuters, via CNBC
Supreme Court (U.S.)
Supreme Court sides with FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines
Published Thu, Jun 4 202611:09 AM EDT
Reuters

The exterior of Verizon and AT&T stores, Coconut Grove, Miami, Florida.
Jeff Greenberg | Universal Images Group | Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court backed the Federal Communications Commissions system for levying fines, ruling on Thursday against wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon in their challenge to the agency and handing a win to President Donald Trumps administration.
The ruling was 8-1. At issue in the legal dispute was whether the agencys in-house proceedings for imposing the penalties deprived the companies of their right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution. Trumps administration defended the FCCs system for assessing financial penalties, known as forfeiture orders.
The FCC fined AT&T $57 million and Verizon nearly $47 million after the agency concluded that the companies had unlawfully sold access to customer location data to third parties without securing the consent of users. ... In all, the FCC imposed nearly $200 million in fines on carriers that it said failed to safeguard customer data. It fined T-Mobile
$80 million and Sprint, which T-Mobile acquired in 2020, $12 million.
Verizon and AT&T paid the fines they were assessed, but also filed legal challenges that eventually led to a split among regional U.S. appellate courts over the lawfulness of the FCCs in-house procedure for imposing the penalties.
{snip}
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-fcc-in-clash-with-wireless-carriers.html
cstanleytech
(28,640 posts)onenote
(46,264 posts)I'm not a securities lawyer, but my understanding is that the SEC can and does impose forfeitures through administrative proceedings.
See, for example, https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2026/33-11413.pdf
cstanleytech
(28,640 posts)nuxvomica
(14,307 posts)With the court so divided and with some justices so blatantly compromised they should always report the dissents. In this case it was Thomas of course.
melm00se
(5,178 posts)Jacson6
(2,249 posts)If I Break the rules and they will fine me for a lot of money. Recently a Ham was fined $24,000, he could appeal it but the attorney wanted a $50k non refundable retainer. He worked out a settlement with the FCC.
mdbl
(8,830 posts)He's the quid pro quo judge.
Polybius
(22,188 posts)It was Clarence Thomas, btw.