WhatsApp’s Contempt Bid Against NSO Group Denied Over Alleged Spyware Accounts

WhatsApp sought to hold NSO Group in civil contempt for allegedly violating a permanent injunction that barred the Israeli spyware maker from targeting its platform. A federal judge in Oakland, California, ruled on October 16, 2026, that WhatsApp had not met the legal standard of “clear and convincing evidence” to prove NSO’s continued violations. The judge cited the lack of transparency in WhatsApp’s methods for identifying the 23 alleged NSO-linked accounts and malicious links, which prevented the court from independently verifying the claims.

The injunction, issued in October 2025, followed a ruling that NSO had violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California law by using vulnerabilities in WhatsApp’s voice calling feature to install Pegasus spyware on approximately 1,400 devices in May 2019. A San Francisco jury had previously awarded WhatsApp $167.3 million in punitive damages and $444,719 in compensatory damages, though the punitive award was later reduced to about $4 million.

The contempt motion, filed in June 2026, alleged new spear-phishing attempts and the use of three malicious domains. However, the judge found that WhatsApp had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate NSO’s ongoing violations. The court emphasized that without transparency, it could not assess the validity of the claims, leaving platforms in a difficult position: reveal investigative methods and risk exposing attackers, or keep them secret and face potential legal consequences.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton’s 11-page order, Document 884 in case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH, concluded that the motion for contempt was denied. The ruling underscores the legal challenges in proving digital security breaches, particularly when the methods of detection are proprietary. The case highlights the broader implications for cybersecurity and the balance between protecting user privacy and ensuring accountability for malicious actors.

The litigation began in October 2019, following NSO’s use of a WhatsApp vulnerability to deploy Pegasus spyware. In December 2024, Hamilton granted summary judgment to WhatsApp, finding violations of multiple laws. The case has drawn attention to the global reach of Israeli cyber intelligence firms and the legal complexities of enforcing digital security measures across international jurisdictions. The outcome reflects the ongoing struggle to hold tech companies and foreign entities accountable for their actions in the digital space.

The ruling also raises questions about the role of private companies in monitoring and reporting cyber threats. As the case illustrates, the legal standards for proving digital violations are high, and the burden of proof often falls on the plaintiff. This dynamic has significant implications for how cybersecurity threats are addressed in a world where digital security is increasingly intertwined with national and corporate interests.

Source: Read the original report