Verizon’s transparency report presents the number of demands we received from law enforcement in the United States during the first half of 2021. The following table sets out the number of subpoenas, orders, warrants, and emergency requests that we received from federal, state, or local law enforcement in the United States during the first half of 2021. The table presents data for the past three years. Data from prior periods can be found by clicking the “Archive” tab at the top of the page. The vast majority of these demands relate to our consumer customers; we receive relatively few demands regarding our enterprise customers. We do not release customer information unless authorized by law, such as a valid law enforcement demand or an appropriate request in an emergency involving the danger of death or serious physical injury.
The total number and types of demands we receive continues to be fairly stable as compared to prior six-month periods. We have generally been seeing an increase in the number of warrants and a decrease in the number of general orders. (We refer to a “general order” as any order other than a pen register, trap and trace, wiretap, or warrant.) That is due in part to the Supreme Court requiring law enforcement to demonstrate probable cause before obtaining location information. We have moved to a new system for tracking legal process, which we believe will help us to report with more accuracy and to avoid the double counting of orders that we believe occurred in prior Transparency Reports.
Verizon has teams that carefully review each demand we receive. We do not produce information in response to all demands we receive. During the first half of 2021, we did not release records in response to approximately 11% of the demands we received. Specifically, we did not release records in response to approximately 11% of the subpoenas we received and approximately 12% of the warrants and orders we received. We may decline to release records for a number of reasons. In some instances, including situations when a different type of legal process is needed for the type of information requested, the legal demand is invalid and therefore rejected. Often, we receive valid demands that seek information about a phone number serviced by a different provider, meaning that we have no records to produce. Likewise, we regularly receive demands seeking data that we do not possess. This includes situations where the data sought is of a type that we do not collect or is older than our retention periods. (Note, in prior Transparency Reports, we indicated only the percentage of demands that we rejected as invalid. We now report more broadly to include the percentage of demands where no records were released. As explained, there are many reasons why we may not produce records, even when the demand is valid.)
We also received National Security Letters and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Orders, which we address in a separate table at the end of this Transparency Report.
Although this report focuses on the demands we receive from law enforcement, we also receive discovery requests for data in civil cases. Our team carefully reviews each civil request to ensure its validity, just as we do in criminal cases. Subpoenas in civil cases are generally issued pursuant to authorities like Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules. Each subpoena must seek relevant information, and that information must be shared with the other party or parties in the civil lawsuit.
During the first half of 2021, Verizon received 10,357 subpoenas in civil cases and 72 orders in civil cases. The 10,357 civil subpoenas sought information about 19,671 customer selectors, and the 72 civil orders sought information about 125 customer selectors. Approximately 60% of the civil requests we received sought information on only one selector (and thus only one customer), and about 90% sought information regarding three or fewer selectors (and thus three or fewer customers). During the first half of 2021, we did not produce any data in response to 47% of civil discovery requests. Like with criminal demands, some civil requests were legally invalid or should have been directed to a different provider. However, the most common reason why we did not produce records in a civil case is that we no longer had any responsive records to provide by the time we received the request. While law enforcement demands in criminal cases typically seek relatively recent records, civil requests are often submitted long after the relevant events have occurred. As we retain customer records only for the duration necessary to meet our business needs, many civil requests seek records that have already surpassed our record retention periods.
Subpoenas
61,211
69,596
64,017
68,192
64,136
66,773
59,264
65,406
General Orders
24,767
21,520
20,614
19,269
12,586
5,760
4,062
3,999
Pen Register/ Trap & Traces
3,383
3,787
3,163
3,753
3,866
3,721
4,492
4,246
Wiretaps
691
645
586
585
525
612
627
414
Warrants
10,631
13,552
14,543
13,870
18,721
16,818
15,061
15,169
Emergency Requests From Law Enforcement
28,125
31,239
33,001
30,365
33,518
34,868
37,760
34,961
Total
128,808
140,339
135,924
136,034
133,352
128,552
121,266
124,195
Which Verizon services does this Transparency Report cover?
The figures in this Report include demands for customer data regarding our Verizon wireline services, such as phone, Internet or television, our Verizon Wireless services, telematics services, and our BlueJeans business. This report does not include statistics for Verizon Media Group, which will issue a separate transparency report. Verizon has recently agreed to sell Verizon Media Group to Apollo Global Management, and the sale is expected to close later in 2021. This report does not include statistics for Bluegrass Cellular, which Verizon acquired earlier this year. We anticipate that figures for Bluegrass Cellular will be included in our next report.
Does Verizon charge law enforcement for providing data?
In some instances, federal and most state laws authorize providers to charge a reimbursement fee for responding to law enforcement demands for records or to recoup reasonable expenses in complying with a wiretap order or pen register or trap and trace order. In the majority of instances, however, we do not seek reimbursement for responding to law enforcement requests. We do not charge for responding to emergency requests and do not charge for responding to most subpoenas. When we do charge a reimbursement fee, our fees are permitted by law or court order and seek to recoup only some of our costs.
Does Verizon also receive requests for data in civil cases?
Yes, we do. Requests in civil cases comprise a small percentage of the total requests we receive. This Transparency Report focuses on requests from law enforcement.
Will Verizon issue future Transparency Reports?
Yes, on a semi-annual basis.
What obligations to report on demands already apply to the United States government?
Federal law already places substantial reporting requirements on federal and state governments.
Each year the United States Attorney General and the principal prosecuting attorney for each state have to report the number of applications for wiretap orders, the number of orders granted, the types of communications intercepted, the number of persons whose communications were intercepted, and the numbers of arrests and convictions resulting from such interceptions. That information is summarized for Congress. See 18 U.S.C. § 2519(2)-(3). Similarly, the Attorney General must make detailed annual reports to Congress on the number of pen registers and trap and trace orders. See 18 U.S.C. § 3126.
The Attorney General also has to report to Congress each year regarding information obtained in emergencies, in some contexts. See 18 U.S.C. § 2702(d). And the Director of the FBI has to report twice each year to Congress regarding the number of National Security Letters issued. See 18 U.S.C. § 2709(e).
How does Verizon respect privacy and free expression when responding to law enforcement demands?
We pay careful attention to law enforcement demands to obtain customer data or to restrict access to information, and we carefully review each demand that we receive to ensure that it is valid. We seek to minimize disclosure of customer data by narrowly interpreting demands and may seek clarification, request modification, or pursue other options, including contesting a demand, if circumstances warrant. We also seek to be accountable and transparent by sharing information about how we handle demands and about our disclosure of customer data.
Verizon is committed to operating with respect for internationally-recognized human rights. For more information on Verizon’s approach to human rights see here.
Does Verizon receive demands to block content?
Although we have not received blocking demands in the United States, we have received such demands in a handful of other countries. This is detailed in our International Report. We do not receive demands from governments to remove content.
Does Verizon receive requests to shut down or restrict access to its network?
No, Verizon has not received government orders to shut down or restrict access to our services or communications networks. If we received such a request, we would evaluate its legality and proportionality and strive to minimize any impact on customers’ freedom of expression and human rights. Such incidents would be disclosed in our semi-annual Transparency Report, consistent with the requirements of applicable laws.