The Supreme Court has decided not to assist Verizon in regaining $47 million related to location data.

      The US Supreme Court has denied Verizon's request to modify a ruling from June that would have allowed it to seek a refund of the $47 million it paid for selling access to customer location data. In contrast, AT&T, due to its procedurally different case, can still pursue reimbursement of its $57 million.

      Verizon will not receive a refund for the $47 million paid regarding customer location data. On Monday, the US Supreme Court declined to alter a June ruling, preventing an appeals court from considering the company's refund request.

      AT&T is in a better position as its case is procedurally distinct, allowing it to seek reimbursement of its $57 million payment.

      The penalties stem from April 2024, when the Federal Communications Commission imposed nearly $200 million in fines across four carriers. T-Mobile faced an $80 million fine, AT&T was fined $57 million, Verizon was assessed $47 million, and Sprint received a $12 million penalty for selling customer location information to aggregators who resold it.

      In practice, the situation was even worse than the dollar amounts indicate. LocationSmart maintained an online demo that could identify nearly any mobile phone in North America, Securus sold location data to law enforcement agencies, and reporters illustrated the issue by paying $300 to a bounty hunter who located a test phone.

      The FCC also did not act swiftly in this case; it warned the carriers in February 2020 that their practices were likely illegal, but the fines were not imposed until four years later.

      The June ruling has consequences that extend beyond just these two companies. The court ruled that telecom firms cannot demand an immediate jury trial upon receiving a forfeiture order.

      Additionally, the court's position on forfeiture orders is less favorable for the FCC. Chief Justice John Roberts described these orders as preliminary statements that do not necessitate payment until court proceedings occur, despite the orders themselves indicating that payment "shall be made" within 30 days.

      This reinterpretation is the reason refunds are being considered at all. Verizon contends it made the payment based on a misleading description from the FCC, and the court left that argument open while, according to Verizon, providing no procedural way to pursue it.

      The long-term impact relates to leverage. A forfeiture order that is merely preliminary is significantly weaker than one that companies typically view as an invoice, which is critical for every privacy case the agency pursues next in a sector where regulators in other regions have already been forced to address location tracking through the courts.

      The European situation differs vastly. Selling access to customer location data on such a scale could result in penalties of up to 4% of global revenue under a regulatory framework that imposes fines running into billions, rather than a minor fine that remains contested six years after the initial warning.