The statement is internally contradictory: "[W]e [do not] have access to the data of our customers, yet they are obligated to provide us with such information

The statement is internally contradictory: "[W]e [do not] have access to the data of our customers, yet they are obligated to provide us with such information under investigations." If your customers "are obligated to" provide you with the information, and they meet that obligation, then you have access to the data, because manifestly your customers have given it to you. This makes it hard for me to see this as anything other than an attempt to obscure the truth (and not a particularly skillful one). There's also this: "Any claim that a name in the list is necessarily related to a Pegasus target or Pegasus potential target is erroneous and false." [Emphasis added.] This is obviously intended to look like a denial, but it isn't. It could well be that all of the names on the list are targets in point of actual fact even if they are not necessarily targets.