Supreme Court rejects Verizon bid for $47 million refund of FCC fine
Supreme Court rejects Verizon bid for $47 million refund of FCC fine
美国最高法院驳回 Verizon 针对 4700 万美元 FCC 罚款的退款请求
The Supreme Court today rejected Verizon’s attempt to get a $47 million refund from the Federal Communications Commission. In a list of orders issued by the court, Verizon’s petition was denied without explanation. The denial apparently ends any possibility of Verizon asking a lower court to review the fine and order the FCC to issue a refund. 美国最高法院今日驳回了 Verizon 向联邦通信委员会（FCC）索回 4700 万美元罚款的请求。在法院发布的一系列裁决令中，Verizon 的请愿被驳回，且未作任何解释。此次驳回实际上终结了 Verizon 请求下级法院复审该罚款并要求 FCC 退款的所有可能性。
However, AT&T and T-Mobile are continuing to challenge similar fines on grounds that selling device-location data did not violate US telecom law. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were fined a total of $196 million in 2024 for selling mobile users’ real-time location data without their customers’ consent. The carriers sold device-location information to data aggregators, who resold it to other firms. 然而，AT&T 和 T-Mobile 仍在继续挑战类似的罚款，理由是出售设备位置数据并未违反美国电信法。2024 年，AT&T、T-Mobile 和 Verizon 因在未经客户同意的情况下出售移动用户的实时位置数据，被处以总计 1.96 亿美元的罚款。这些运营商将设备位置信息出售给数据聚合商，后者再将其转售给其他公司。
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, and the Supreme Court ruled against the carriers in June of this year. The 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. The ruling against the carriers was 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting. 这些运营商在缴纳罚款后试图通过法院推翻裁决，声称其第七修正案规定的陪审团审判权受到了侵犯。AT&T 和 Verizon 的挑战被合并为一案，最高法院于今年 6 月作出不利于运营商的裁决。法院裁定，FCC 的处罚程序并未违反第七修正案，因为如果运营商拒绝缴纳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。该裁决以 8 比 1 通过，克拉伦斯·托马斯（Clarence Thomas）大法官持异议。
Verizon wants another appeal
Verizon 寻求再次上诉
Verizon essentially claims it was tricked into paying the fine and didn’t know it had the option to not pay. In a petition it filed after the Supreme Court loss, Verizon 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.’” Verizon reported quarterly revenue of $34.3 billion in Q2 2026, along with net income of $3.9 billion. Verizon 本质上声称其被诱导缴纳了罚款，且不知道自己有权拒绝支付。在最高法院败诉后提交的请愿书中，Verizon 表示，FCC 在 2024 年将罚款描述为具有约束力，但随后“在诉讼过程中退缩，改变了立场，并最终告诉本院，FCC 的没收令并不‘强制付款’。”Verizon 报告称，其 2026 年第二季度季度营收为 343 亿美元，净利润为 39 亿美元。
Having lost its attempt to invalidate the FCC’s process for issuing financial penalties, Verizon now wants another chance to argue that the fine itself wasn’t legally justifiable. It complained that the Supreme Court expressed no view on the merits of the fine, yet left Verizon with no recourse to challenge it. 在试图废除 FCC 金融处罚程序失败后，Verizon 现在希望获得另一次机会，以论证罚款本身在法律上是不合理的。该公司抱怨称，最高法院未对罚款的实质内容发表意见，却让 Verizon 失去了挑战罚款的途径。
“For Verizon only, this Court’s disposition threatens to foreclose the very question that it purported to leave open,” Verizon’s petition said. “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. But short of extraordinary relief like recalling the Second Circuit’s mandate, Verizon alone will be out of luck. This Court should amend its disposition to avoid that result.” “对于 Verizon 而言，本院的处置方式威胁到了本院声称留待解决的问题，”Verizon 的请愿书写道。“其他三家受到几乎完全相同的 FCC 命令约束的运营商，均有途径去辩论本院在判决书脚注 5 中‘未发表意见’的问题。但除非采取撤回第二巡回法院指令等非常规救济措施，否则 Verizon 将孤立无援。本院应修改其处置方式以避免这一结果。”
As Verizon noted, the FCC also fined AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint for the same kind of violation. Verizon said AT&T can keep challenging its fine because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which previously ruled in AT&T’s favor. T-Mobile and its Sprint subsidiary lost in the District of Columbia Circuit in 2025 and are asking the Supreme Court for a review. By contrast, Verizon lost in the 2nd Circuit and says it has no path to reopen its case because the Supreme Court affirmed the 2nd Circuit judgment without saying more. 正如 Verizon 所指出的，FCC 也因同样的违规行为对 AT&T、T-Mobile 和 Sprint 进行了罚款。Verizon 表示，AT&T 可以继续挑战其罚款，因为最高法院将该案发回了美国第五巡回上诉法院，而该法院此前曾作出有利于 AT&T 的裁决。T-Mobile 及其子公司 Sprint 于 2025 年在哥伦比亚特区巡回法院败诉，目前正请求最高法院进行复审。相比之下，Verizon 在第二巡回法院败诉，并表示由于最高法院在未作进一步说明的情况下维持了第二巡回法院的判决，它已没有途径重开案件。
“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. “只需微小的处置调整——即维持原判但发回重审——就能让 Verizon 与 AT&T、T-Mobile 和 Sprint 处于平等地位，并允许 Verizon 请求第二巡回法院审理本院声称留待解决的问题，”Verizon 向最高法院表示。
Carriers still argue data sales were legal
运营商仍辩称数据销售合法
Even if the Supreme Court remanded the case to the 2nd Circuit, Verizon would have a tough time reversing its loss. When a three-judge panel at the 2nd Circuit unanimously ruled against Verizon, it rejected Verizon’s Seventh Amendment claim and its claim that selling the location data was legal. Verizon claimed the privacy rules in Section 222 of the Communications Act cover only call-location data, and not device-location data. 即使最高法院将案件发回第二巡回法院，Verizon 也很难扭转败局。当第二巡回法院的三名法官小组一致裁定 Verizon 败诉时，他们驳回了 Verizon 关于第七修正案的诉求，以及关于出售位置数据合法的论点。Verizon 声称《通信法》第 222 条中的隐私规则仅涵盖通话位置数据，而不涵盖设备位置数据。
The 2nd Circuit disagreed, pointing 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. 第二巡回法院对此表示不同意，并指出法律文本明确规定，客户专有网络信息（CPNI）包括与电信服务位置相关的数据，且这些数据是“仅凭运营商与客户关系”而提供给运营商的。“因此，它有资格作为客户专有网络信息，并触发《通信法》第 222 条规定的隐私保护，”裁决书写道。
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.” 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. 第二巡回法院的裁决描述了 Verizon 如何将位置数据出售给两家聚合商 LocationSmart 和 Zumigo，“后者又与 63 家第三方实体签订了合同。”裁决书提到，新闻报道显示 Securus Technologies 滥用了该程序，允许执法人员访问位置数据，而密苏里州的一名警长“甚至在没有任何法律程序的情况下就能访问客户数据”。
The major carriers have said they discontinued the data-sharing programs the fines related to, but still claim the fines were illegal. AT&T and T-Mobile still have hopes of getting rulings that would invalidate their fines. 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.” 各大运营商表示，他们已经停止了与罚款相关的数据共享计划，但仍声称罚款是非法的。AT&T 和 T-Mobile 仍希望获得能使其罚款失效的裁决。T-Mobile 请求最高法院认定法律保护的位置信息“仅指通话位置信息，而非有关移动设备位置的其他信息”。
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. An AT&T or T-Mobile victory could limit the ability of future FCC chairs to punish carriers for sales of device-location data. No such penalties are likely under the current administration. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr argued against the fines in 2024 when the commission was led by a Democratic majority. 第五巡回法院对 AT&T 的有利裁决仅基于第七修正案，并未涉及 AT&T 的其他论点。在最高法院败诉后，AT&T 提交了一份简报，敦促第五巡回法院认定其出售的客户数据不受第 222 条保护。AT&T 或 T-Mobile 的胜利可能会限制未来 FCC 主席惩罚运营商出售设备位置数据的能力。在现任政府领导下，此类处罚不太可能发生。FCC 主席布伦丹·卡尔（Brendan Carr）在 2024 年委员会由民主党多数派领导时，曾对这些罚款表示反对。