The FCC filed a formal opposition brief this week telling a federal appeals court it has no obligation to return the $57 million AT&T paid in 2024 for selling customers’ real-time location data to unvetted third parties — and that the underlying fine should be upheld on its merits regardless. In a September 23 filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the agency also made a substantive case that AT&T committed 84 distinct violations of federal privacy law by continuing to share customer location data with 84 separate entities for nearly a year after public reporting revealed that its consent-verification system was structurally unable to stop abuse.

The brief lands on September 25, 2026, with T-Mobile’s parallel $92 million refund petition still pending at the Supreme Court, where the Justice Department’s response deadline falls on this date. Verizon’s path to a similar refund closed in August when the Supreme Court denied its rehearing request without comment. That leaves AT&T as the only carrier with a live procedural route to recover money from the $196 million in fines the FCC imposed two years ago across all major wireless carriers for the same underlying conduct.

The FCC’s enforcement action traces to AT&T’s operation of a location-data pipeline that was, by the agency’s account, structurally incapable of meaningful oversight. The violations underlying the fines trace to a location-data architecture that allowed AT&T to sell real-time position data — pulled from continuous cell-tower pings that every wireless device generates simply by being turned on — to commercial intermediaries called location aggregators, who then resold access to downstream service providers. AT&T’s oversight system required these downstream providers to certify that they had obtained customer consent, but the company acknowledged it had no ability to verify those certifications or to distinguish valid consent records from fraudulent ones.

Location Aggregators, a Missouri Sheriff, and a $300 Bounty

The failure surfaced publicly in May 2018 when the New York Times reported that a Missouri sheriff named Cory Hutcheson had used a location-finding service from a provider called Securus Technologies to track hundreds of people — including a local judge, multiple highway patrol officers, and his predecessor as sheriff — without warrants or consent. The Times investigation, by Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, found that Securus was accessing real-time carrier location data through the same commercial pipeline AT&T operated. Eight days after that story ran, AT&T terminated Securus’s access but took no immediate action against the other 84 providers still selling customer location data under the same defective system.

Nine months later, in January 2019, the publication Motherboard reported that another AT&T-authorized provider called MicroBilt was selling real-time location data to bounty hunters in the bail bond industry. A journalist demonstrated the exposure by paying $300 to a bounty hunter who then located a specific phone to a precise address. Two days after that report, AT&T announced it would end its location-based services program — but gave itself two more months to do so. The program continued operating through March 29, 2019, a total of 323 days after AT&T was first notified that its consent controls were compromised.

The FCC’s 2024 forfeiture order found that AT&T committed one continuing violation for each of the 84 entities it continued to allow access after the initial New York Times story — a methodology that two other circuit courts upheld.

How the Supreme Court’s June Ruling Created the Refund Opening

All four carriers paid their fines and appealed. AT&T brought its challenge in the Fifth Circuit; Verizon in the Second Circuit; and T-Mobile in the D.C. Circuit. Their primary argument was constitutional: the FCC’s in-house adjudication process violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy.

In April 2025, the Fifth Circuit agreed with AT&T and vacated the fine, holding that the FCC had already “found the facts, interpreted the law, adjudged guilt, and levied punishment” before any jury had been involved. The Second and D.C. Circuits disagreed, ruling the fines constitutional.

On June 4, 2026, the Supreme Court resolved the circuit split in an 8-1 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The majority upheld the FCC’s enforcement scheme — but on reasoning that set the stage for the current dispute. Roberts held that FCC forfeiture orders do not actually create a binding obligation to pay. The Commission cannot seize assets or collect fines on its own authority. If a carrier refuses to pay, the government must refer the matter to the Justice Department, which may — but is not required to — file a separate civil enforcement lawsuit in which the carrier gets a full jury trial. The majority found no Seventh Amendment problem because ultimate legal rights are not settled until that later jury proceeding. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing the Court was rewarding AT&T and Verizon for complying with what looked to any reasonable legal reader like a mandatory payment order.

The SCOTUS ruling reversed the Fifth Circuit’s earlier vacatur and sent AT&T’s case back to that court for further proceedings. Because the Fifth Circuit had been the only court to side with AT&T, AT&T’s case was the only one remanded — leaving Verizon and T-Mobile in courts that had ruled against them.

AT&T’s Refund Theory — and the FCC’s Two-Pronged Rebuttal

With its case back before the Fifth Circuit, AT&T advanced a new argument it had never raised in its original appeal: that the FCC’s own conduct had misled it into paying. Because the forfeiture order contained boilerplate language directing AT&T to pay within 30 days and declaring it “liable for a monetary forfeiture,” AT&T argued it reasonably believed payment was mandatory. Had its lawyers understood, as the Supreme Court later clarified, that the fine was not actually compulsory, AT&T’s counsel Pratik Shah of Akin Gump wrote, the carrier would not have written the check.

The FCC’s September 23 brief dismantles this argument on two independent grounds. First, waiver: AT&T never raised the misleading argument in its initial Fifth Circuit appeal, or in its Supreme Court briefs until a reply brief — the last possible filing, at which point the Supreme Court declined to address it. The Supreme Court’s parallel handling of Verizon’s identical claim — summarily denied on rehearing without comment on August 17, 2026 — shows the argument is unpreserved. Second, the merits: the forfeiture order itself stated four separate times, in paragraph 69, that AT&T was “entitled to a trial de novo in federal district court before it can be required to pay the forfeiture.” The FCC argues that a sophisticated corporation represented by experienced telecommunications counsel cannot credibly claim it was misled when the order itself spelled out its rights in unambiguous terms.

On the underlying merits, the FCC also defends the fine directly, arguing that AT&T’s alleged violation of Section 222 of the Communications Act was well-documented, that location data constitutes CPNI under the statute’s plain text, and that the 84-violation count was appropriate — positions now endorsed by two other federal circuits.

Carr’s Unusual Position: Defending a Fine He Once Opposed

The FCC’s defense of both the refund claim and the underlying fine comes under the chairmanship of Brendan Carr, who dissented from the original 2024 enforcement action as a commissioner. Carr argued at the time that the location data in question was not covered by Section 222’s definition of customer proprietary network information. Since then, courts in the D.C. Circuit and the Second Circuit have rejected that statutory reading, finding location data covered when obtained through the carrier-customer relationship.

The FCC is now defending a fine its own chairman once opposed because the agency’s broader enforcement authority across consumer protection matters depends on its ability to levy and collect penalties. Even a chairman who disagreed with the original legal theory has institutional reasons to resist returning money to a regulated party — particularly when two other circuits have already validated the agency’s position on the merits.

Why the Fifth Circuit’s Answer Matters Beyond AT&T

Legal observers have noted that the broader consequence of the June SCOTUS ruling is a structural change in how FCC enforcement authority operates. An FCC forfeiture order that regulatees now understand to be formally nonbinding — pending a DOJ collection suit that the government may never bring — is a different instrument than one widely treated as a mandatory bill. A Perkins Coie analysis of the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision noted that the ruling’s effect on pending and future FCC enforcement proceedings could be far-reaching. That reframing affects every regulated entity’s calculus going forward.

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in AT&T’s case will resolve questions the Supreme Court explicitly left open: whether the Section 222 CPNI definition covers this type of location data, whether each of the 84 provider relationships constitutes a separate violation, and — if the court reaches it — whether AT&T can recover its $57 million on the misleading argument. If the court sides with AT&T on the refund, it could signal to every regulated carrier that paying a contested FCC fine voluntarily — rather than forcing DOJ to sue — carries a recovery option that did not previously exist.

What Happened to the Other Carriers

Verizon’s situation is settled. The Second Circuit upheld its $46.9 million fine, the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling in June, and Verizon’s August 17 rehearing denial ended all prospects for a refund. Verizon cannot appeal further.

T-Mobile’s situation is the most active. The carrier — whose combined fine with Sprint totals $92.2 million — filed a certiorari petition at the Supreme Court on June 26, 2026 arguing that, like AT&T, it paid under a misimpression that the fine was mandatory. The DOJ, unlike in the Verizon case, opted to submit a response — with a deadline extended through today, September 25, 2026. Whether the justices take T-Mobile’s certiorari petition will determine whether the $92 million question gets its own briefing cycle before the Supreme Court, or whether the June ruling is the last word on the fine’s constitutional validity.

For AT&T’s more than 70 million wireless subscribers, the conduct underlying the fines — selling real-time location data through commercial pipelines with inadequate consent verification — ended in March 2019. All major carriers discontinued location-based service programs following the FCC’s enforcement action. But the legal question of whether the penalties imposed in response to that conduct will stand, or whether roughly $57 million in enforcement revenue will be returned to the carrier responsible, is still being adjudicated in the Fifth Circuit on remand — with the FCC’s answer, filed this week, being a definitive no.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can AT&T actually recover its $57 million from the FCC?

The FCC’s position, filed this week, is that it cannot — on two grounds. First, the FCC argues AT&T waived the refund argument by not raising it in its original appeal; it surfaced only in a Supreme Court reply brief, where the Court expressly declined to address it. Second, the FCC argues the forfeiture order was not misleading: it stated four separate times that AT&T was entitled to wait for a DOJ collection suit before being required to pay. Whether the Fifth Circuit accepts those arguments will determine the outcome. Verizon attempted a similar refund claim and was definitively rejected; AT&T’s case has a procedural opening Verizon’s did not.

What does the Supreme Court’s June ruling mean for FCC enforcement going forward?

The ruling clarified that FCC forfeiture orders are not self-executing. They create no immediate legal obligation to pay — if a carrier refuses, the government must file a separate civil lawsuit in federal district court where the carrier gets a full jury trial with no deference given to the FCC’s prior findings. This changes the incentive structure for regulated entities. A carrier that now understands a fine is “voluntary pending DOJ collection” may be more likely to refuse payment, forcing the government to decide whether to invest the resources in a trial-de-novo suit. Critics argue this subtly undermines the FCC’s deterrent capacity across all of its enforcement jurisdiction, not just in location-data cases.

Why is the FCC defending a fine its own chairman opposed?

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr dissented from the 2024 fine when he was a commissioner, arguing the location data in question fell outside Section 222’s definition of customer proprietary network information. Since then, two federal circuits — the D.C. Circuit and the Second Circuit — have rejected that reading of the statute and held that all carrier-obtained location data falls within Section 222’s protections. The FCC is now defending the fine because the agency’s broader enforcement authority across consumer protection matters depends on its ability to levy and collect penalties. Even a chairman who disagreed with the original legal theory has institutional reasons to resist returning money to a regulated party.

What is the easiest thing a consumer can do in response to this?

The location data practices that led to these fines ended in 2019, and all major carriers discontinued their aggregator-based location programs. The more durable consumer concern is systemic: whether the FCC can effectively punish future privacy violations depends partly on how this case resolves. Consumers who want stronger wireless privacy protections can contact their congressional representatives about legislation — like a specific private right of action under Section 222 — that would give harmed individuals direct legal standing rather than relying solely on the FCC’s enforcement mechanism.