Supreme Court ruling could damage FCC case
Both AT&T and Verizon cite the June 2024 Supreme Court ruling Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesywhich held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.”
The Supreme Court's ruling, which upheld an order from the 5th Circuit, had not yet been issued when the FCC finalized its fines. The FCC challenged the 5th Circuit's ruling, saying, among other things, that Supreme Court precedent made clear that “Congress may assign matters involving public rights to adjudication by an administrative agency,” even if the Seventh Amendment would require a jury where the assessment of those rights would take place. is instead assigned to a federal court. ''
Of course, the FCC will have a harder time keeping the Jarkesy now rules that the Supreme Court has affirmed the 5th Circuit. Verizon emphasized that in the Supreme Court Jarkesy In his decision, Judge Sotomayor, in a dissent, recognized that Jarkesy was not limited to the SEC, and identified many agencies, including the FCC, whose practice of “impos”[ing] civil penalties in administrative proceedings” would be “overturned”.[ed].'”
Verizon further argued: “As in the Jarkesy case, the fact that the FCC is seeking 'civil penalties… intended to punish' is 'all but determinative' of Verizon's right to an Article III court and a jury, rather than to a prosecutor and jury. .”
Carriers: We did not receive fair notice
Both carriers said the FCC had not provided “fair notice” that its Section 222 authority over customer proprietary network information (CPNI) would apply to the data in question.
When imposing the fines, the FCC said the carriers had been given reasonable notice. “CPNI is legally defined, to the extent relevant, to include 'information relating to… the location… of a telecommunications service,'” the FCC said.
