T-Mobile Loses Appeal As Court Upholds $92 Million Fine For Selling Customer Location Data Without Consent

When a federal appeals court delivered its ruling last week, it shut down T-Mobile’s attempt to overturn a $92 million penalty for selling user location data. The case marks one of the most significant rebukes yet of the telecom industry’s argument that quietly selling people’s whereabouts was not a violation of law.

The background: how carriers sold your movements

For years, major carriers including T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon funneled customer location information to aggregators like LocationSmart and Zumigo. Those firms then sold access further downstream, including to bounty hunters, landlords, and even a Missouri sheriff who used it to track people without warrants. At the heart of the practice was “Customer Location Information” (CLI), data generated every time a phone pinged a cell tower. Judges noted this effectively created “an intimate window into a person’s life.”

Though the FCC began investigating after revelations in 2018, it wasn’t until 2024 that the commission finalized fines. T-Mobile and Sprint together were hit with $92.3 million, AT&T with $57.3 million, and Verizon with $46.9 million.

Carriers argued selling data wasn’t illegal

Instead of denying the sale of data, T-Mobile and Sprint claimed the practice didn’t technically violate federal law. Their attorneys argued that location pings weren’t covered under the definition of Customer Proprietary Network Information in the Communications Act, which they said only applied to call-specific location data. Judges dismissed this reasoning as a “strained interpretation,” ruling that any connection between a device and a tower counts as “location of use.”

The carriers also protested the size of the fines and demanded a jury trial, citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision granting securities fraud defendants that right. The DC Circuit responded that T-Mobile waived a jury trial when it chose to pay its fine first and then appeal. In the judges’ view, if the company wanted a jury, it should have refused to pay and waited for the government to sue.

Why the court wasn’t persuaded

The ruling’s opening line set the tone: “Every cell phone is a tracking device.” Judges emphasized that location records can map a person’s routines, relationships, and private life with precision. They further faulted T-Mobile and Sprint for continuing sales even after public scandals exposed the risks. In their words, the carriers’ conduct was “egregious.”

What happens next

T-Mobile said it is “reviewing the court’s action” and could still seek a rehearing before the full appeals court or appeal to the Supreme Court. But the precedent is set: the DC Circuit found the FCC acted properly, rejecting claims of overreach.

Meanwhile, AT&T and Verizon are fighting their own fines in other circuits. If those courts follow the same reasoning, the industry’s long-running effort to downplay the sensitivity of location data will collapse entirely.

Why this matters for customers

• Location data isn’t just marketing fodder, it can expose where you live, work, worship, or seek medical care.
• Fines like this highlight the gap between corporate profits and consumer protection. For context, T-Mobile reported $3.2 billion in net income last quarter alone, making the $92 million fine a fraction of one percent of earnings.
• Critics argue penalties should be tied directly to company profits to truly deter misconduct, rather than absorbed as a “cost of doing business.”

The bigger privacy fight

The case underscores a wider debate: who owns your digital trail? While Europe has strict protections under GDPR, U.S. law lags behind. Telecom companies still collect vast amounts of location data, and enforcement only kicks in when abuses come to light. Judges may have rejected T-Mobile’s legal loopholes, but until Congress strengthens privacy rules, the burden often falls on watchdogs and regulators to police after the fact.

This ruling closes one chapter, but AT&T and Verizon’s verdicts could soon decide whether the entire industry faces real accountability, or whether selling location data remains just another business model with fines baked into the cost.