This is an interesting case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving telephone companies’ violations of CPNI rules. The question is whether the FCC’s penalty process for CPNI violations is consistent with Article III and the Seventh Amendment. AT&T and Verizon were fined approximately $59M and $47M for willful and repeated violations of Section 222 of the Telecommunications Act, mainly for giving customers’ location data to third parties that had inadequate safeguards for CPNI.
Federal Communications Commission, et al., Petitioners v. AT&T, Inc.
Docket for 25-406
The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq., empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess monetary forfeiture penalties for certain violations of the Act or the FCC’s regulations by issuing a notice of apparent liability, giving the regulated party an opportunity to respond in writing, and then issuing a final decision. If the regulated party declines to pay and the government sues to collect the penalties, the regulated party is entitled to a de novo jury trial in a federal district court. Alternatively, the subject of an FCC forfeiture order may pay the monetary penalty and file a petition for review in a court of appeals, thereby triggering a judicial-review proceeding in which no jury is available.
The question presented is as follows: Whether the Communications Act provisions that govern the FCC’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.
