Hof Verizon claims that the sales location data are legal without permission

Instead of providing notification to customers and to obtain the permission of the customer himself, “Verizon” has those functions largely delegated through contract, “said the court. This system and their shortcomings were unveiled in 2018 when” The New York Times published an article that reported security of Verizon (and other large carriers).

Securus Technologies, a supplier of communication services for correction facilities, “was abuse of the program to enable law enforcement officers to gain access to location data without The knowledge or permission of customers, as long as the officers have uploaded an order or another legal authorization, “said the ruling. A sheriff from Missouri” had no access to customer data at all, “because Securus did not assess the documents that the law enforcement did not assess.

Verizon claimed that section 222 of the Communications Act only includes rowing data, in contrast to data from device locations. The court did not agree with this and pointed to the text of the law stating that the customer’s ownership information contains data related to the location of a telecommunications service and that is made available to the carrier “exclusively on the basis of the relationship between the Carrier posture”.

“Data for Device Location comfortably meet both conditions,” the court said.

Verizon chose to pay a fine, entitled to jury court

Regarding the claim of Verizon that the FCC has violated its right to a juric court, the court said that “Verizon could have received such a trial” if it “had refused to pay the forfeiture and his chance of a again Jury court as the government tried to collect. “Instead, Verizon chose to pay the fine” and immediately assess it in our court. “

The 5th circuit decision in favor of AT&T, on the other hand, said that the FCC ‘acted as public prosecutor, jury and judge’, the right to a jury court. The 5th circuit said it was led by the Supreme Court of June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. JarkesyHe ruled that “when the SEC civil fines are looking for a defendant for securities fraud, the seventh amendment gives the suspect the right to a jury court.”

The 2nd circuit statement said there are important differences between the American Telecom Act and the securities laws that are considered in Jarkesy. Because of those differences, Verizon had the option to refuse to pay the fine and to retain the right to a jury court, the court said.

In the Jarkesy Case, the problem “was that the SEC claims its securities fraud, away from Article III court and the payment without a jury court could force,” said the 2nd circuit panel. “However, the forfeiture of the FCC does not in itself force payment. The government must initiate a fundraising campaign to do so. Against this background, the procedure of the agency before a § 504 (a) process does not create a seventh change of change.”