The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case over whether the Federal Communications Commission can fine Verizon and AT&T for selling customers’ location data without proper safeguards. The penalties total more than $100 million, and the companies say the process leaves them with too little chance to tell their side of the story in court.
Chief Justice John Roberts pressed that point hard, asking, “I wonder if, at the end of the day, you're really just talking about a PR problem.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh also suggested the companies are not without options, saying, “It seems like you’ve won on the law going forward one way or the other.”
The dispute turns on how the FCC enforces its rules. Verizon and AT&T argue that the agency’s penalty system is unconstitutional because it forces companies into a narrow choice after a notice arrives: pay first and then challenge the fine in an appeals court, or refuse to pay and wait for the government to sue in federal court, where the case could eventually reach a jury. The Trump administration defended the process as an essential regulatory tool and said it does leave a path to court.
The broader stakes reach well beyond two telecom giants. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has already moved to curb federal agencies, overturning a decades-old decision that had given regulators an advantage in court and stripping another agency of a major tool in fighting securities fraud. Advocates for the FCC’s enforcement powers say a win for Verizon and AT&T could ripple through other agencies that use similar penalty systems, making it harder for regulators to punish companies without first going to court.
For now, the justices did not signal a clean answer, but the shape of the case was clear: either the Federal Communications Commission keeps a fast, administrative route to punish rule violations, or companies get a stronger shot at a jury before paying. That choice will determine whether the agency’s penalties remain a practical deterrent or become a far slower fight.
