Verizon says it was "compelled" to provide the records and "complied," but its processes "could have been better suited"
VerizonCompany testimony by Chris Miller, senior vice president and general counsel of Verizon Consumer Group, to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee
Verizon's general counsel for its consumer group, Chris Miller, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on February 10, 2026 that Verizon was compelled by law to provide the information in response to special counsel subpoenas and complied, that it cannot ignore a valid legal demand, and that its processes could have been better suited to what he called a new and unique set of circumstances. He described new steps, including notifying members and challenging nondisclosure orders in court.
“We were compelled to provide this information under law, and we complied. No matter who is the target of a subpoena Verizon cannot ignore a valid legal demand. But our processes could have been better suited to meet what was a new and unique set of circumstances for us, and for other companies.”
Original text
Original text
Original text
Where this statement fits
Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
On September 29, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled "Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters," with former special counsel Jack Smith as its only witness. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and other Republicans said that Smith's team, in the FBI's Arctic Frost investigation and its own election case, obtained members of Congress's phone toll records and text messages, used nondisclosure orders to keep members from learning of it, and breached the Speech or Debate Clause. Smith said the toll records were non-content records obtained after he directed his staff to consult the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, and that the nondisclosure orders were consistent with the law and Justice Department policy at the time. Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL) called the attacks on Smith "petty, personal, and political." The sides and the documents give different counts of the members affected. The dispute is whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Verizon's written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law about the special counsel subpoenas it received and the changes it has made in handling requests involving members of Congress.
Original text
About this source
AT&T's written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law about the subpoenas it received from the special counsel's office in 2022 and 2023.
Original text
About this source
Verizon's letter to Grassley describing the May 25, 2023 grand jury subpoena from the special counsel's office, its date range, the nondisclosure order and the records Verizon produced.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Miller's written testimony said Verizon received a federal grand jury subpoena from the special counsel's office for 12 telephone numbers, seeking subscriber information and call detail records for January 4 through 7, 2021. The subpoena listed only numbers, and a judge issued a nondisclosure order.
After the quotation
Miller said Verizon now brings requests involving members to senior leadership, verifies with law enforcement that it intends to seek a member's number, and will notify the member and challenge any nondisclosure order that prevents notice. AT&T's general counsel told the same hearing that AT&T's lawyers asked the special counsel's office about the Speech or Debate Clause on a May 2023 subpoena for two members' accounts and the office did not respond or pursue it.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Verizon said it complied with what it treated as a valid legal demand and could not ignore one, while acknowledging its processes could have been better and adopting new steps to notify members. It takes no position on whether the subpoenas or the nondisclosure orders were proper. Because it neither condemns nor defends the collection and combines compliance with an admission about its own process, we labeled it Mixed or conditional.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseGrassley calls Smith's actions unlawful and unconstitutional
“the major embarrassment of the hearing was Democrats falling over themselves defending unlawful and unconstitutional actions by Jack Smith.”Read statement
Harker argues for personal accountability in Blackburn's suit
“She filed it against Jack Smith in his personal capacity to seek accountability, not money”Read statement
Chenoweth condemns alleged concealment supporting the records order
“I think that it's intolerable behavior”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Verizon says it was "compelled" to provide the records and "complied," but its processes "could have been better suited"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/3323-verizon-s-general-counsel-for-its-consumer-group
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Verizon says it was "compelled" to provide the records and "complied," but its processes "could have been better suited"". First published: 2026-09-29. Last updated: 2026-09-29. https://disputeindex.com/events/3323-verizon-s-general-counsel-for-its-consumer-group