FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data
US regulators have fined the largest wireless carriers roughly $200 million for illegally sharing customers’ location data, but many observers argue the penalties are trivial compared to the companies’ revenues and profits. Comments center on whether such fines are simply a “cost of doing business” that won’t deter future abuses, and whether stronger measures—like much larger penalties, personal liability for executives, or outright bans on selling location data—are needed. The conversation also touches on comparisons with GDPR-style rules, the role of dark patterns in obtaining “consent,” and the fact that government agencies themselves often buy commercial location data to sidestep warrant requirements.
Scale and Meaning of the Fines
- Many see the ~$200M total as negligible vs carrier revenues and profits; likened to a “cost of doing business.”
- Others stress the jump from $0 to $200M as important precedent and institutional “muscle-building” for future, larger fines.
- Back-of-envelope comparisons: fines are tiny fractions of annual revenue/profit and can be earned back in about a day of combined profits.
- Disagreement over whether shareholders care: some say they’ll accept fines if profits from data sales vastly exceed penalties; others note repeated fines and bad press can still matter.
Deterrence, Enforcement, and Law
- Debate on whether first-time fines should already be painful, since data misuse cannot be “un-shared.”
- Some call for fines as a percentage of revenue or 10x profits from the unlawful activity, and even for revoking corporate charters.
- Stronger proposals include personal liability for executives/boards and even (semi-serious) corporal punishments.
- FCC is limited to civil penalties and cannot imprison anyone; criminal action would require DOJ.
- Several comments argue US regulators (FCC, SEC, etc.) are under-resourced, politically gridlocked, and slow, making enforcement weak.
Privacy, Consent, and Data Markets
- Widespread anger that carriers sold highly sensitive location data, often to shady intermediaries (e.g., bounty hunters, prison-tech firms).
- Some argue transparency and user control (seeing who has your data, chain-of-custody logs, easy blocking) would curb abuse.
- Others say GDPR-style consent shows transparency alone is insufficient due to dark patterns and user fatigue.
- Suggestions:
- Make such data sharing strictly opt-in with real benefits to users—or ban location data sales entirely.
- Require insurance and “make whole” remedies for harms from data misuse or leaks.
- Treat changes to terms that expand data use as new contracts requiring explicit, non-dark-pattern consent.
Data Ecosystem and Technical Aspects
- Location data is bought very cheaply per user but used in powerful aggregate analytics (hedge funds, the Fed, etc.).
- Government agencies and law enforcement reportedly buy commercial location data, sidestepping warrants.
- Carriers can obtain GPS-level precision (not just tower-based) and can remotely prompt phones to report location, nominally for 911 but viewed with suspicion.
- MVNOs riding on big-three networks are assumed to inherit the same privacy problems.
User Responses and Broader Cynicism
- Some adopt extreme personal privacy practices (cash, airplane mode, offline media, blocking infrastructure) but acknowledge limits (healthcare, payroll).
- General sentiment: without stronger laws, aggressive enforcement, and possibly structural changes, fines like these will not meaningfully change carrier behavior.