A civil investigative demand (CID) is a written order that lets a government enforcer collect evidence before it has filed any lawsuit. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and state attorneys general use it to require documents, data, sworn written answers or oral testimony from a company or person believed to hold relevant information. It exists because civil enforcers, unlike prosecutors, have no grand jury. A CID gives them a comparable power to look before they decide whether to sue.

The recipient need not be accused of anything. In the FTC's 2025 inquiry into media rating companies, Vanessa Otero, chief executive of Ad Fontes Media, objected that "typically, for a subpoena or a discovery request in a civil trial, parties have to be actually charged with something". That is precisely the gap a CID fills.

How a demand works

At the FTC, the process starts with a resolution authorising compulsory process, a Commission vote that defines the subject of an investigation. Under that resolution, a commissioner signs individual demands. Rule 2.7 of the FTC's procedures lists what a CID may require: documentary material including electronically stored information, tangible things, written reports, answers to questions and oral testimony. For investigations of unfair or deceptive practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the CID is the only compulsory tool available; subpoenas are reserved for other work.

Every demand must state the nature of the conduct under investigation and the law it may breach, describe each class of material clearly enough to identify it, set a return date and name a custodian who receives the material. The recipient then has two clocks running. It must meet FTC staff "within 14 days after receipt of process or before the deadline for filing a petition to quash, whichever is first", bringing people who understand its records and data systems.

If talks fail, the recipient may file a petition to limit or quash within 20 days of service. It is capped at 5,000 words, must certify that counsel conferred in good faith, and becomes public. The Commission must rule within 40 days. A CID is not self-executing: if the recipient still refuses, the agency must ask a federal district court to enforce it, and only a court order backed by contempt compels compliance. Courts apply a deferential test set out in United States v. Morton Salt Co., decided on February 6, 1950, asking whether the inquiry is within the agency's authority, the demand not too indefinite and the information reasonably relevant. Justice Robert Jackson wrote that an agency, like a grand jury, "can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not."

State demands follow similar lines. Under section 17.61 of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a demand must name the statute under investigation and the general subject matter; a petition to modify or set it aside must be filed before the return date or within 20 days of service, whichever comes first.

The Montana demand served on Ford on April 8, 2026 ran nine pages with 28 requests covering driving, telematics and connected-vehicle data from April 1, 2021 onwards and asked about Ford's agreements with LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Verisk. Sworn, notarised answers were due by May 8, 2026.

From antitrust tool to consumer protection staple

The device began in antitrust. The Antitrust Civil Process Act, approved on September 19, 1962, let the Attorney General demand documents from a company under investigation in a civil antitrust case. It covered only documentary material and only legal entities. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of September 30, 1976 widened it to any person likely to hold relevant material, including individuals and third parties, added interrogatories and oral testimony, and extended it to proposed mergers.

The FTC obtained the power through the Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act of 1980, approved on May 28, 1980. Its Section 13 added Section 20 to the FTC Act, authorising CIDs in consumer protection investigations before any proceeding begins. Congress then gave the DOJ CIDs for False Claims Act cases in amendments approved on October 27, 1986, and in May 2009 allowed the Attorney General to delegate that power and share results with whistleblowers. The Dodd-Frank Act of July 21, 2010 gave the new CFPB its own version. Nearly every state attorney general now holds comparable authority under consumer protection or antitrust statutes.

How easily demands are issued has shifted with the politics of each Commission. On September 14, 2021, the FTC voted 3-2 to adopt omnibus resolutions authorising compulsory process across eight priority areas including children under 18 and "deceptive and manipulative conduct on the internet". Commissioners Noah Phillips and Christine Wilson voted against.

Where advertising meets the demand

For advertising and ad tech, a CID is often the first public sign of a case. On September 9, 2019, Texas served Google with a 29-page demand containing more than 200 requests about its advertising business, including the DoubleClick and AdMob acquisitions and its ad auctions, according to Bloomberg reporting summarised by Boing Boing. The investigation became the lawsuit Texas and nine other states filed on December 16, 2020.

Children's privacy now produces the largest volume. Texas opened its first inquiry into Character.AI and 14 other companies in December 2024 and a second into Character.AI and Meta AI Studio in August 2025, seeking information on data collection and safeguards for minors. An expanded demand to Discord on October 9, 2025 preceded the state's lawsuit on May 22, 2026, a common sequence: demand, document review, complaint.

Brand safety has been the most politically charged use. The FTC's May 20, 2025 letters asked media rating organisations for records from January 1, 2019 onwards about their methods, finances and relationships with 13 other bodies, including the World Federation of Advertisers, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science, with a return date of June 19, 2025. The inquiry followed X's antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media and ran alongside the Omnicom-IPG merger order. It ended in the April 15, 2026 complaint against WPP, Publicis and Dentsu, filed with a proposed consent order.

Limits and disputes

Challenging a demand before the agency tries to enforce it is difficult. Twitter sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over a CID about its content moderation after it banned Donald Trump; the Ninth Circuit held the case unripe in an amended opinion of December 14, 2022, reasoning that the CID "is not self-enforcing" and so had caused no cognizable injury.

Media Matters for America took a different route and won. After it published research on advertisements beside extremist posts on X in November 2023, Paxton demanded its records; Judge Amit Mehta blocked the Texas demand in April 2024, and the D.C. Circuit upheld that injunction in May 2025, citing "uncontested evidence of Paxton's retaliatory motive", according to MediaPost. Its challenge to the FTC's own CID followed. On August 15, 2025, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan enjoined it, writing that "speech on matters of public concern is the heartland of the First Amendment". A divided D.C. Circuit panel refused to lift the injunction on October 23, 2025; Judge Justin Walker dissented.

The broader objection is cost and leverage. Otero called the brand safety demands excessive and said they can burden businesses and discourage speech. Defenders reply that most recipients never face a complaint. Neither claim is easy to test, because demands and responses are largely confidential.

Not the same as

Subpoena. Compels testimony or documents, usually inside a pending case or an administrative proceeding. Some states, including Florida, use subpoenas where others use CIDs, and press reports often treat the words as interchangeable.

Second request. A merger-review demand under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act that extends the waiting period before a deal may close. It applies only to notified transactions, not to conduct investigations.

6(b) order. A special report the FTC orders for industry-wide studies, not law enforcement. The September 10, 2025 orders to seven AI chatbot companies required answers within 45 days without alleging any violation.

Attorney general letter. Carries no compulsory force. The August 25, 2025 letter from 44 attorneys general warned AI companies but demanded nothing enforceable. Separately, in paid search CID often means a Google Ads customer ID, the ten-digit account number, which has no connection to the legal term.

Recent developments

The brand safety demands unwound in April 2026. The FTC told Judge Dabney Friedrich on April 17 that its settlements with the three holding companies "resolved the issues related to NewsGuard that gave rise to the CID", according to MediaPost, which reported that the agency had sent CIDs to 17 entities. It withdrew the Media Matters demand on April 20 and, on May 4, settled that case by agreeing not to issue a comparable CID. The FTC's 2026-2030 strategic plan, published on April 3, 2026, kept children's data and ad fraud as priorities. A Fifth Circuit ruling of March 20, 2026 pushed the FTC's deception cases towards federal court, where CID findings must stand up at trial.

Demands are also turning into balance-sheet items. A first-day declaration filed on October 13, 2026 in Character.ai's Chapter 11 case listed six regulatory inquiries: FTC, Kentucky, New Mexico and two Texas CIDs, plus a 46-member multistate investigation in settlement talks. The FTC demand of January 15, 2025, which covered Section 5 and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), was paused around August 26, 2025. Kentucky's March 26, 2025 demand became a lawsuit on January 8, 2026.

Timeline

  • February 6, 1950: The Supreme Court decides United States v. Morton Salt Co., setting a deferential standard for agency information demands
  • September 19, 1962: The Antitrust Civil Process Act gives the DOJ civil investigative demands for documents
  • September 30, 1976: The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act extends antitrust CIDs to third parties, individuals, interrogatories, testimony and proposed mergers
  • May 28, 1980: The FTC Improvements Act adds Section 20 to the FTC Act, authorising consumer protection CIDs
  • October 27, 1986: False Claims Act amendments give the DOJ CID authority in fraud cases
  • May 20, 2009: Congress allows delegation of False Claims Act CIDs and sharing with whistleblowers
  • July 21, 2010: The Dodd-Frank Act gives the CFPB CID authority
  • September 9, 2019: Texas serves a 29-page CID on Google about its advertising business
  • December 16, 2020: Texas and nine states sue Google over ad tech
  • September 14, 2021: The FTC adopts omnibus compulsory process resolutions in eight areas by a 3-2 vote
  • December 14, 2022: The Ninth Circuit's amended opinion in Twitter v. Paxton finds a CID challenge unripe
  • November 2023: Texas opens its investigation of Media Matters
  • April 2024: Judge Amit Mehta enjoins the Texas demand on Media Matters
  • December 2024: Texas opens a privacy investigation into Character.AI and 14 other companies
  • January 15, 2025: The FTC serves a CID on Character Technologies
  • May 20, 2025: The FTC issues CIDs to media rating organisations, including Media Matters
  • August 15, 2025: Judge Sparkle Sooknanan enjoins the FTC's Media Matters CID
  • October 9, 2025: Texas expands its CID to Discord
  • October 23, 2025: The D.C. Circuit declines to lift the Media Matters injunction
  • April 8, 2026: Montana serves CIDs on Ford and Stellantis over driving data
  • April 15, 2026: The FTC and eight states sue WPP, Publicis and Dentsu
  • April 17, 2026: The FTC withdraws its NewsGuard CID
  • April 20, 2026: The FTC withdraws its Media Matters CID
  • May 4, 2026: The FTC settles with Media Matters and agrees not to reissue a comparable demand
  • May 22, 2026: Texas sues Discord
  • October 12, 2026: Character Technologies files for Chapter 11 in Delaware
  • October 13, 2026: Character's first-day declaration lists six open federal, state and multistate inquiries

Summary

Who. The FTC, the DOJ, the CFPB and state attorneys general issue civil investigative demands. Recipients range from platforms and automakers to agency holding companies, verification vendors, media rating organisations and individuals who merely hold relevant records. Federal and state courts decide whether a contested demand must be obeyed.

What. A pre-suit order compelling documents, data, tangible things, written answers or testimony in a civil investigation, with a stated subject, a return date and a custodian. It can be narrowed in negotiation or by petition, and it becomes enforceable only through a court order.

When. The DOJ gained the power in 1962 and broadened it in 1976. The FTC received it in 1980, the False Claims Act version followed in 1986 and the CFPB's in 2010. Advertising-related demands multiplied from 2019, and the FTC's brand safety demands were withdrawn in April and May 2026.

Where. Across the United States, at federal agencies and in state attorney general offices. Disputes are heard in federal district courts and, for state demands, in state or federal courts.

Why. Civil enforcers lack a grand jury, so the CID lets them test suspicions before committing to litigation. For the marketing industry, a demand is often the earliest sign of a case on data, children's audiences or ad buying, and the material it collects shapes the complaint that may follow.