Skip to main content
ExplainerData PrivacyInvestigative Explainer· Updated · 4 min read· in News & Politics

How Commercial Data Brokers Sell Unwarranted Geolocation Data to US Law Enforcement

Federal agencies are bypassing the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement by purchasing citizens' precise location data from unregulated commercial data brokers.

By Mathis Dubois

Share this story

Listen

In short

  • Federal agencies are purchasing commercial smartphone location data to track individuals without a warrant.
  • The practice bypasses the 2018 Supreme Court ruling that requires probable cause for cell-site location tracking.
  • Data brokers aggregate billions of location signals daily from innocuous weather, dating, and family safety apps.

Inside the digital architecture of a modern smartphone, a string of alphanumeric characters known as a Mobile Advertising Identifier (MAID) broadcasts its precise coordinates dozens of times an hour. Designed to help retail brands target local consumers, these 32-character beacons are entirely invisible to the device owner. But for federal law enforcement agencies, they represent a structural bypass of the United States Constitution. By purchasing this commercial data in bulk, government investigators can track the movements of millions of citizens without ever approaching a judge.[5]

The mechanism relies on a vast, largely unregulated secondary market. When a user downloads a weather app, a dating service, or a family safety tracker, they typically grant the software permission to access their device's GPS hardware. That location data is frequently packaged and sold to commercial data brokers, who aggregate the signals into massive, searchable databases.

For example, investigations revealed that the popular family safety app Life360 was selling precise location data on its tens of millions of users to third-party brokers, while other individual brokers routinely collect over 10 billion location data points globally every day.[2]

Historically, the Fourth Amendment has shielded this level of intimate tracking. In the landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision Carpenter v. United States, the justices ruled that individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their physical movements. Consequently, law enforcement must demonstrate probable cause and secure a warrant before compelling a telecommunications provider to hand over historical cell-site location information spanning seven days or more.[1]

The commercial data market allows agencies to bypass the judicial oversight required for telecommunications subpoenas.

However, the commercial data market operates outside that judicial framework. Because the government is purchasing the data on the open market rather than compelling a company to produce it, federal attorneys argue the transaction does not constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. This interpretation relies on the state action doctrine, which holds that constitutional limits apply only to government coercion, not to voluntary commercial sales.[1]

The result is a system where the exact same geolocation data that requires a warrant when requested from Verizon or AT&T can be legally acquired with a credit card from a third-party aggregator. Federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Defense, have collectively spent tens of millions of dollars to access these commercial databases. A review of over 150 publicly available federal contracts showed the FBI expanding its ability to collect cellphone location data through vendors like Venntel.[1]

The scale of this surveillance is vast. Data brokers collect, analyze, and aggregate data that is highly sensitive and susceptible to abuse, often without the consumer's knowledge. The Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly warned that collecting this data without appropriate controls exposes individuals to potential harm, as the data can reveal visits to reproductive health clinics, political protests, places of worship, and substance abuse treatment centers.

Federal spending on commercially available personal data has accelerated as the broker market expands.

The practice has drawn explicit confirmation from the highest levels of federal law enforcement. In recent congressional testimony, FBI leadership acknowledged that the bureau purchases commercially available information for use in its operations. "By paying data brokers, the government can track individuals in real time and in deeply personal ways without a warrant or citizen notification," privacy advocates have warned, noting the complete lack of transparency regarding the total amount spent on citizen surveillance.[1]

The security implications extend beyond civil liberties to physical safety. Data brokers compile extensive dossiers that include the home addresses and daily routines of law enforcement officers, judges, and elected officials. In several high-profile cases, individuals have purchased this commercially available data to locate and attack public servants at their private residences, prompting calls for stricter judicial privacy laws.[4]

Legislative efforts to close this loophole have repeatedly stalled. Proposals like the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing data that they would otherwise need a warrant to obtain. Despite polling indicating that 80 percent of Americans support such a requirement, the commercial acquisition of geolocation data remains a foundational pillar of modern federal investigations.

Legislative efforts to close this loophole have repeatedly stalled.

In 2024, agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposed rules to stop data brokers from selling sensitive personal data, with regulators explicitly stating that "Fourth Amendment rights should not be for sale, under any circumstance." However, law enforcement purchases often remain exempt from these broader commercial regulations.[3]

Until statutory limits are enacted, the boundary between commercial advertising and state surveillance remains functionally erased. The legal protection of a citizen's physical movements now depends entirely on whether the government chooses to demand the data with a subpoena, or simply buy it from a vendor.[5]

Key terms

Data Broker
A company that collects, aggregates, and sells personal information—such as location and browsing history—often without the direct knowledge of the consumer.
Fourth Amendment
The constitutional provision that protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, generally requiring the government to obtain a warrant.
State Action Doctrine
A legal principle stating that constitutional protections only apply to actions taken by the government, not to the conduct of private companies.
Mobile Advertising Identifier (MAID)
A unique string of characters assigned to a smartphone that allows developers and advertisers to track a user's behavior across different applications.

Frequently asked

Did the Supreme Court ban warrantless location tracking?

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled the government needs a warrant to compel phone companies to provide location data, but the ruling did not address purchasing that data from commercial brokers.

How do data brokers get my location?

When users grant location permissions to seemingly innocuous apps, those apps frequently sell the GPS data to third-party brokers, who aggregate and resell it.

What is the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act?

It is a proposed federal law that would require government agencies to obtain a court order before purchasing personal data from commercial brokers.

Viewpoints in depth

The Civil Liberties Argument

Privacy advocates view the data broker market as an unconstitutional bypass of the warrant requirement.

Organizations tracking digital privacy argue that the commercial data market functionally nullifies the Supreme Court's 2018 Carpenter ruling. They assert that if the government is constitutionally prohibited from compelling a telecom provider to hand over location data without probable cause, it should be equally prohibited from purchasing the exact same movements from a third-party aggregator. In their view, the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the data itself, regardless of the financial mechanism used to acquire it.

The Law Enforcement Justification

Federal agencies argue that purchasing commercially available data is both legal and operationally necessary.

Federal investigators and intelligence agencies maintain that they are simply participating in an open commercial market. Because users voluntarily agree to terms of service that allow apps to sell their location data, agencies argue there is no longer a reasonable expectation of privacy. FBI leadership has publicly defended the practice as utilizing all available lawful tools to track criminal suspects, monitor national security threats, and conduct investigations in an era where traditional surveillance methods are increasingly hindered by encryption.

The Constitutional Loophole

Legal scholars point to the 'state action' doctrine as the structural reason the practice remains unchallenged in court.

The core legal defense of data purchasing relies on the state action doctrine, which dictates that the Fourth Amendment only restricts government coercion. Because data brokers are private entities collecting information for commercial purposes, their initial aggregation is not a government search. When federal agencies subsequently buy that data, they are engaging in a voluntary commercial transaction rather than executing a coercive search. Legal analysts note that until Congress passes statutory limits like the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, the courts are unlikely to intervene.

Civil Liberties Advocates 45%Federal Regulators 35%Legal Scholars 20%
Civil Liberties Advocates
Argue that purchasing commercial data is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's intent, bypassing the judicial oversight required by the Carpenter decision.
Federal Regulators
Focus on the consumer protection aspect, warning that the unregulated sale of sensitive data exposes citizens to harm from both scammers and unchecked surveillance.
Legal Scholars
Analyze the 'state action' doctrine, noting that while the practice exploits a loophole, it technically operates outside current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Perspectives this story doesn't cover

  • Commercial Data Brokers
  • State-Level Police Departments

Sources

Source coverage

5 outlets

3 viewpoints surfaced

Civil Liberties Advocates 45%Federal Regulators 35%Legal Scholars 20%
  1. [1]Journal of Strategic SecurityLegal Scholars

    The Brave New World of Third Party Location Data

    Read on Journal of Strategic Security →
  2. [2]The MarkupCivil Liberties Advocates

    The Popular Family Safety App Life360 Is Selling Precise Location Data on Its Tens of Millions of Users

    Read on The Markup →
  3. [3]Consumer Financial Protection BureauFederal Regulators

    CFPB Proposes Rule to Stop Data Brokers from Selling Sensitive Personal Data

    Read on Consumer Financial Protection Bureau →
  4. [4]ForbesLegal Scholars

    Protecting Public Officials: Impact of Judicial Privacy Laws on Background Checks

    Read on Forbes →
  5. [5]Factlen Editorial TeamCivil Liberties Advocates

    Synthesis by Factlen editorial team

    Read on Factlen Editorial Team →
Listen

Comments

Stay informed

Every angle. Every day.

Get News & Politics stories with full source coverage and perspective breakdowns, free every day.