The Global Network Initiative (GNI) – a multistakeholder membership organization focused on the intersections of tech, privacy, and freedom of expression – recently convened1 a two-part learning call series to discuss the evolving frontiers of government demands for tech companies, the related privacy implications, and rights-respecting responses.
The first call was on “reverse searches,” a growing type of government demand for user information that raises important questions about privacy, freedom of expression, and the responsibilities of technology companies. The discussion followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in Chatrie v. United States, which addressed the constitutional protections applicable to geofence warrants – a form of reverse search.
The call brought together perspectives from GNI’s members – including civil society, academia, online platforms, and telecommunications companies – and external experts to explore how reverse searches differ from traditional law enforcement requests, the evolving legal landscape across jurisdictions, and how companies can respond to the associated human rights risks. This piece highlights key learnings and areas of discussion from the conversation; it does not intend to be a comprehensive review of the issues.
Understanding Reverse Searches and the Significance of Chatrie
Greg Nojeim, of the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) and a former GNI Board member, explained that, unlike traditional law enforcement requests, which seek information about an identified suspect, reverse searches begin without a specific target. Instead, authorities ask companies to identify individuals based on a shared characteristic or action, such as their presence in a particular location or their use of certain search terms.
These requests can implicate the privacy of large numbers of people who are not suspected of wrongdoing. Nojeim noted that the same approach used in geofence warrants could extend to, for example, searches for individuals who looked up sensitive reproductive health information, or entered particular prompts into AI systems, raising broader concerns about freedom of expression and access to information.
Vivek Krishnamurthy, of the University of Colorado and a former GNI Board member, described this shift as moving technology companies further upstream in criminal investigations, into the process of identifying potential suspects. He emphasized that existing legal protections are often designed around individuals who have already been identified as targets, leaving those incidentally caught up in reverse searches with limited opportunities to challenge the disclosure of their information.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Chatrie represents an important development in addressing these concerns. The case arose from a 2019 bank robbery investigation in which law enforcement obtained Google location data associated with devices near the crime scene. The Court held that the government’s acquisition of this information constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and remanded the case to a lower court.
Matt Gardner of Google reflected on the company’s experience responding to geofence warrants, which ranged from narrowly targeted requests to those encompassing large numbers of users. Following an earlier ruling in Chatrie, Google challenged more than 3,000 geofence warrants, approximately half of which were subsequently withdrawn by law enforcement. Google welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision as an important step toward strengthening constitutional protections for user privacy.
The discussion also explored the broader implications of Chatrie for other forms of reverse searches, particularly cell tower dumps, which allow law enforcement to obtain information about devices connected to specific cell towers during a given period. Nojeim noted that CDT has argued that, post-Chatrie, many such requests may no longer satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements, particularly where law enforcement has failed to sufficiently narrow the scope of the search.
Reverse Searches Across Jurisdictions
While Chatrie provides new guidance in the United States, participants highlighted that the legal treatment of reverse searches differs significantly across jurisdictions.
TJ McIntyre of University College Dublin and Digital Rights Ireland explained how European law approaches government access to communications data through requirements of necessity, proportionality, and independent authorization. Although European courts have addressed related practices, including cell tower dumps, the application of these standards to newer forms of reverse searches remains largely untested in the EU.
Participants representing the telecommunications sector also highlighted the challenges of responding to government demands across different legal and regulatory environments. For example, in some jurisdictions, local legal frameworks offer limited human rights protections, leaving companies with relatively little room to push back on certain kinds of requests. Participants emphasized that companies must also consider the safety of their employees, which can be jeopardized when companies are seen to implement additional safeguards beyond those required by local law. These experiences illustrate the difficulty of applying consistent human rights safeguards where domestic legal frameworks and operating conditions vary.
The Role of Companies and Opportunities for Multistakeholder Engagement
Beyond legal protections, participants emphasized the role of company policies and privacy-protecting product design in mitigating the risks associated with reverse searches.
Krishnamurthy encouraged companies to consider these risks across the entire data lifecycle, including decisions about what information is collected, stored, and retained. Google described how the company has changed its location data practices, including moving certain information to on-device storage, in ways that no longer support its previous process for responding to geofence warrants.
Participants also discussed how emerging technologies, including AI, could expand the scope and sophistication of reverse searches. For example, law enforcement could seek to identify individuals who entered particular prompts into AI chatbots or use facial imagery and more sophisticated data queries to identify potential suspects. These possibilities raise questions about how companies should evaluate government demands that require searching information about users who have not otherwise been identified as suspects. GNI staff shared their plans to produce a policy brief examining the ways in which data generated by AI systems is accessed through legal processes, including government demands, as well as the human rights implications of that access.
Looking ahead, speakers identified opportunities for greater cross-sector engagement and collaboration, particularly around clarifying rights-respecting legal standards, rights-respecting practices for data retention and response to law enforcement demands, and capacity building. Krishnamurthy emphasized the importance of developing resources for smaller companies that may hold sensitive information without having the legal and technical capacity to assess complex government requests. McIntyre similarly highlighted the value of industry input on user privacy in shaping the evolving legal landscape where it is unclear.
The discussion underscored that while Chatrie marks an important development, significant questions remain about how reverse searches should be regulated, what protections should extend to individuals incidentally affected, and how companies can navigate competing legal obligations while respecting human rights.
_____________________________________________
1. As with all GNI activities, this conversation was held under GNI’s policies, including our antitrust compliance policy. The discussion was also held under the Chatham House Rule; participants are named with their consent.