A federal appeals court has rejected T-Mobile’s attempt to overturn $92 million in fines for selling customer location information to third-party firms without consent.
Why it matters: The ruling underscores the seriousness with which the FCC views breaches of customer data privacy and marks an important precedent in the regulation and enforcement of data protection laws by telecommunications companies.
The details:
- The FCC previously fined T-Mobile and its subsidiary Sprint for sharing access to customers’ location information without consent and failing to protect that sensitive data against unauthorized disclosure.
- Until 2019, T-Mobile and Sprint sold customer location information to location information aggregators LocationSmart and Zumigo without verifying whether buyers obtained customer consent.
- The carriers argued that the FCC overstepped its authority, but the appeals court panel decided that the FCC acted properly.
- The court found that the FCC’s interpretation of the Communications Act was reasonable and upheld the fines, which included $80.1 million for T-Mobile and $12.2 million for Sprint.
The fines relate to sharing of real-time location data, but it took years for the FCC to finalize the penalties.
What they’re saying:
- “Every cell phone is a tracking device,” the ruling begins.
- “Sprint and T-Mobile now petition for our review. Neither denies what happened. Instead, they argue that the undisputed facts do not amount to a violation of the law.”
- The judges criticized T-Mobile and Sprint for relying on “strained interpretations” of the statute and upheld that the fines were reasonable given the egregious nature of their conduct.
The other side: T-Mobile said it is “currently reviewing the court’s action” but did not provide further comment. The carrier could seek a review in front of all the appeals court’s justices or ask the Supreme Court to review the case.
What’s next: AT&T is challenging its $57.3 million fine in the 5th Circuit appeals court, while Verizon is challenging its $46.9 million fine in the 2nd Circuit.
