ATT resists complying with the National Search Alert; file a complaint

ATT filed a complaint against a resolution issued by the fourth district court on administrative matters of Mexico City, which denied protection to the telecommunications firm so that it does not comply with the National Search Alert.

According to the most recent legal appeal filed before the collegiate court in administrative matters of the first circuit, the company is trying to have the refusal to suspend its participation revoked to immediately activate the massive dissemination of search files, a tool derived from the modifications made in 2025 to the General Law on Disappearance of Persons.

Although the law stipulates the mandatory collaboration of different actors, including telecommunications companies, ATT argues that “the claimed system unduly transforms the duty of collaboration of individuals into an obligation of permanent operational participation within the state search system, forcing the company to receive files, enable assignment emails, generate acknowledgments, maintain permanent channels of attention and adapt physical and digital media for the daily and continuous dissemination of official information issued by the authority.

“The above implies the transfer to an individual of functions that materially correspond to the State and generates administrative burdens that are difficult to comply with, with a strong economic and operational impact.”

The National Search Alert arose from the demands of families, groups and experts regarding the disappearances of people in the country. However, ATT Comunicaciones Digitales has promoted legal resources.

The resolution denied the firm the provisional suspension because granting it “would affect public order and social interest, since it could cause significant, direct and immediate damage to the community and would imply depriving society of benefits that ordinarily correspond to it.”

The most recent appeal from the telecommunications firm indicates that the necessary analysis was not carried out on its request, although it also recognizes that “it does not intend to stop collaborating or assisting with the security, prosecution and administration of justice bodies in matters of security.” With the suspension, he argues, he only seeks to limit his obligations in compliance with the law, not the protocol.