Signal end-to-end encrypts both content and metadata by default far beyond most of our peers. Our aim is to have access to as close to no data as possible, meaning that we have a fraction of the personal information compared to the average communications service. We simply don’t have access to things like messages, calls, profile information, group information, contacts, stories, call logs, and many other kinds of content and metadata, and we cannot share data in response to valid legal requests that we never had in the first place.
This doesn’t mean we don’t receive subpoenas and other requests for data. While we fight these, we are sometimes forced to comply. And when we are, we work to unseal these and make them available in the name of transparency.
We received a grand jury subpoena from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which requested customer or subscriber account information for a list of 37 phone numbers. Specifically, it asked us to produce the account creation date and time, as well as the last connection date and time for those accounts. This showcases increasing awareness of the remarkably little information Signal can make available in response to such requests in the first place.
Our response to the subpoena was predictably brief:
- Of the 37 accounts for which information was sought, seven accounts did not exist.
- For 24 accounts, we did not possess any responsive information for the time period at issue.
- For the remaining 6 accounts, we provided the responsive information for the time period at issue.
Initially, this request was accompanied by a nondisclosure order (NDO). That order directed Signal and its employees not to disclose the existence of the subpoena to any other person for a period of one year. Thanks to the efforts of the ACLU, in late 2025, the nondisclosure order was modified to allow Signal to disclose the fact that it received the subpoena and NDO, provided that we publish a version containing agreed-upon redactions.
We’d like to thank the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented Signal for the purposes of responding to this order. We are especially grateful for the ongoing assistance of our counsels for this response, Jennifer Stisa Granick and Brett Max Kaufman.
The relevant documents for this request can be found below.