AT&T and Verizon lose Supreme Court case over fines for selling location data
AT&T and Verizon lose Supreme Court case over fines for selling location data
AT&T 和 Verizon 在因出售位置数据被罚款的最高法院案件中败诉
AT&T and Verizon lost an attempt to overturn fines for selling users’ real-time location data without consent, as the Supreme Court ruled today that the Federal Communications Commission process for issuing financial penalties did not violate the right to a jury trial. AT&T 和 Verizon 试图推翻因未经同意出售用户实时位置数据而遭罚款的努力宣告失败。最高法院今日裁定，联邦通信委员会（FCC）发布经济处罚的程序并未违反陪审团审判权。
AT&T convinced the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to overturn its fine last year, while Verizon lost in the 2nd Circuit. The Supreme Court took up the case to resolve the circuit split and reversed the 5th Circuit decision in today’s ruling, which was 8-1 with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting. AT&T 去年曾说服美国第五巡回上诉法院推翻了对其的罚款，而 Verizon 在第二巡回法院则败诉。最高法院受理此案旨在解决巡回法院之间的分歧，并在今日的裁决中推翻了第五巡回法院的判决。该裁决以 8 比 1 通过，克拉伦斯·托马斯（Clarence Thomas）大法官持异议。
AT&T and Verizon were fined a total of $104 million by the FCC in 2024 for violations revealed in 2018. The carriers paid their fines and challenged them in circuit appeals courts, where judges’ panels ruled on the cases. Carriers claimed this system deprived them of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. 2024 年，FCC 因 2018 年披露的违规行为对 AT&T 和 Verizon 处以总计 1.04 亿美元的罚款。这些运营商支付了罚款，并在巡回上诉法院提出质疑，由法官小组对案件进行裁决。运营商声称，这一制度剥夺了他们宪法第七修正案规定的陪审团审判权。
But in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court accepted the FCC argument that carriers could have obtained jury trials if they refused to pay the fines and the government tried to collect. Carriers could either pay the fines and challenge them in circuit appeals courts, or not pay the fines and wait for the government to collect in a process that ultimately would result in a jury trial for each carrier. 但在首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）撰写的多数意见书中，法院采纳了 FCC 的论点，即如果运营商拒绝支付罚款并等待政府强制执行，他们本可以获得陪审团审判的机会。运营商可以选择支付罚款并在巡回上诉法院提出质疑，或者不支付罚款，等待政府通过最终会导向陪审团审判的程序进行追缴。
“The FCC’s forfeiture proceedings fit comfortably within” the Supreme Court’s Seventh Amendment precedents, Roberts wrote. “The orders at issue did not settle the carriers’ legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay. And the orders did not reflect the ultimate determination of any fact because, before the carriers could have been made to pay, the Government was required to prove its case to a jury.” “FCC 的没收程序完全符合”最高法院关于第七修正案的先例，罗伯茨写道。“涉案命令并未确定运营商的法律义务，因为简单来说，它们并未产生支付义务。这些命令也没有反映任何事实的最终裁定，因为在强制运营商支付之前，政府必须向陪审团证明其主张。”
During oral arguments, justices expressed skepticism of AT&T and Verizon’s claims and seemed to agree that FCC fine decisions are nonbinding until enforced by a court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh described the case as a victory for carriers either way, because the government acknowledged its orders are nonbinding without a jury trial. “It seems like you’ve won on the law going forward, one way or the other,” Kavanaugh told the attorney representing the carriers. 在口头辩论中，大法官们对 AT&T 和 Verizon 的主张表示怀疑，并似乎同意 FCC 的罚款决定在法院强制执行前不具约束力。布雷特·卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）大法官将此案描述为运营商的胜利，因为政府承认其命令在没有陪审团审判的情况下不具约束力。“无论从哪方面看，你们在法律层面似乎都已经赢了，”卡瓦诺对代表运营商的律师说道。
Carriers “tried to dodge all accountability”
运营商“试图逃避所有责任”
Today’s decision is important for upholding the FCC’s ability to investigate and propose penalties that can be enforced in court, said John Bergmayer, legal director at advocacy group Public Knowledge. “The Supreme Court got this one right,” Bergmayer said in a press release. “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. The FCC investigated, found the carriers liable, and proposed penalties—which the carriers were always free to challenge in court.” 倡导组织“公共知识”（Public Knowledge）的法律总监约翰·伯格迈尔（John Bergmayer）表示，今天的裁决对于维护 FCC 调查并提出可由法院强制执行的处罚能力至关重要。“最高法院这次判对了，”伯格迈尔在新闻稿中说。“AT&T 和 Verizon 出售了其客户的位置数据访问权限，随后未能阻止赏金猎人甚至一名流氓警长利用这些数据追踪那些根本不知道自己被跟踪的人。FCC 进行了调查，认定运营商负有责任，并提出了处罚建议——运营商始终有权在法庭上对这些处罚提出质疑。”
AT&T and Verizon “tried to dodge all accountability by claiming the FCC’s established process denied them a jury trial,” but the Supreme Court confirmed that this isn’t true, Bergmayer said. “This decision keeps the FCC able to do the job Congress gave it. An agency that cannot investigate carriers and propose penalties would lose one of its best tools for protecting consumers and enforcing the law,” he said. 伯格迈尔表示，AT&T 和 Verizon “试图通过声称 FCC 既定程序剥夺了他们的陪审团审判权来逃避所有责任”，但最高法院证实事实并非如此。“这一裁决使 FCC 能够继续履行国会赋予它的职责。一个无法调查运营商并提出处罚建议的机构，将失去保护消费者和执行法律的最佳工具之一，”他说。
Regarding Kavanaugh’s point during oral arguments, Bergmayer told Ars today that “you can debate the framing, but that was already the law anyway. The FCC can only enforce through the courts.” The FCC would have lost if it had argued differently, he said. 关于卡瓦诺在口头辩论中提出的观点，伯格迈尔今日告诉 Ars：“你可以争论这种表述方式，但无论如何，这已经是既定法律。FCC 只能通过法院进行强制执行。”他说，如果 FCC 采取不同的论点，它本会败诉。
AT&T and Verizon “argue that FCC forfeiture orders cause reputational and practical harms entitling them to a jury,” the Supreme Court wrote today. “They contend that the Seventh Amendment applies to such harms, ‘even where no money is at stake.’ This argument is hard to square with the text of the Seventh Amendment, which applies only to suits ‘where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.’” 最高法院今日写道，AT&T 和 Verizon “辩称 FCC 的没收令造成了声誉和实际损害，使他们有权获得陪审团审判。他们主张第七修正案适用于此类损害，‘即使不涉及金钱利益’。这一论点很难与第七修正案的文本相符，该修正案仅适用于‘争议价值超过二十美元’的诉讼。”
Besides what the court called the “textual implausibility” in the carriers’ legal theory, justices said the risk of reputational harm does not “exact an unduly high cost for exercising their jury right.” Reputational harm may befall any party in the preliminary stage of a legal proceeding, and “this has never been thought to pose a Seventh Amendment problem,” the ruling said. 除了法院所称的运营商法律理论中“文本上的不可信”之外，大法官们表示，声誉受损的风险并不会“为行使陪审团权利带来过高的代价”。声誉损害可能发生在法律程序的初步阶段，裁决指出，“这从未被认为会构成第七修正案的问题”。
During oral arguments, the carriers’ attorney said “legitimate parties” always pay the fines and that “it had occurred to no one for decades that these orders are not binding.” 在口头辩论中，运营商的律师表示，“合法的当事人”总是会支付罚款，并且“几十年来没有人想到这些命令是不具约束力的”。
FCC “powerless” without court backing
没有法院支持，FCC 将“无能为力”
“Refusing to take yes for an answer, the carriers insist that they actually must pay,” the court wrote. “They point out that [Section 503 of the Communications Act] uses words that sound in a mandatory register—the Commission ‘determine[s]’ whether a forfeiture is appropriate, ‘assesse[s]’ the ‘amount’ of such a penalty, and ‘impose[s]’ that penalty.” “运营商拒绝接受这一结果，坚持认为他们实际上必须支付，”法院写道。“他们指出，《通信法》第 503 条使用了听起来具有强制性的词汇——委员会‘确定’没收是否适当，‘评估’此类处罚的‘金额’，并‘施加’该处罚。”
But those words by themselves “tell us little about whether a §503(b)(4) order truly settles the carriers’ rights and duties,” the court said. When the legal phrases are put in the proper context of the overall statutory scheme, it’s clear that the FCC “is powerless to visit any adverse consequences on a regulated party who receives a forfeiture order,” the court said. 但法院表示，这些词汇本身“并不能说明第 503(b)(4) 条的命令是否真正确定了运营商的权利和义务”。当这些法律术语被置于整体法定框架的适当背景下时，很明显 FCC “无权对收到没收令的受监管方施加任何不利后果”。
The carriers’ case relied on the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that the SEC system for issuing fines violated the right to a jury trial. In its ruling today, the Supreme Court said that “Jarkesy only proves our point.” In Jarkesy, “we held that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could not impose civil penalties using its in-house administrative process,” the court said. “Those penalties were immediately enforceable; the SEC could garnish the recipient’s wages or deduct a portion of the forfeiture from…” 运营商的案件依赖于最高法院 2024 年 6 月在“证券交易委员会诉 Jarkesy 案”中的裁决，该裁决认为 SEC 发布罚款的制度违反了陪审团审判权。在今天的裁决中，最高法院表示“Jarkesy 案反而证明了我们的观点”。法院称，在 Jarkesy 案中，“我们裁定证券交易委员会（SEC）不能使用其内部行政程序来施加民事处罚。那些处罚是立即生效的；SEC 可以扣押接收者的工资或从……”中扣除部分没收金额。