Five things we learned from WhatsApp vs. NSO Group spyware lawsuit

Tech Crunch - May 10th, 2025

WhatsApp achieved a significant legal victory over NSO Group as a jury ordered the spyware maker to pay over $167 million in damages. This decision concludes a legal battle that began in October 2019 when WhatsApp alleged that NSO exploited a vulnerability in its audio-calling feature to hack over 1,400 users. The trial, lasting a week, included testimonies from NSO Group's CEO Yaron Shohat and WhatsApp employees detailing the sophisticated zero-click attack. Notably, NSO had severed ties with 10 government clients for misuse of its Pegasus spyware, with revelations exposing clients such as Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan.

The implications of this ruling are profound, shedding light on NSO Group's operations and the broader debate on digital privacy and surveillance. Despite the lawsuit, NSO continued targeting WhatsApp users, highlighting the persistent threat of cyber-attacks. The case also disclosed NSO's interaction with American authorities, testing its spyware on a U.S. phone for the FBI, though the agency chose not to proceed with Pegasus. This emphasizes the global scale and complexity of cyber espionage, raising questions about regulation and ethical use of surveillance technology.

Meta Legal Battle Cybersecurity Spyware Pegasus Nso Group Whats App Yaron Shohat

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

8.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive and accurate account of the legal battle between WhatsApp and NSO Group, focusing on the significant damages awarded to WhatsApp. It effectively balances technical details with broader implications, making it accessible and engaging for a wide audience. While the article is generally balanced, it could benefit from more insights into NSO Group's perspective to enhance its objectivity. The timely and relevant subject matter, combined with clear and concise writing, ensures that the article is both informative and impactful, contributing to ongoing discussions about privacy and cybersecurity.

Accuracy

The story is highly accurate, with its main claims being well-supported by external sources. The report that a jury ordered NSO Group to pay more than $167 million in damages to WhatsApp is verified by multiple sources, which confirm the amount and the context of the legal battle. The details about the zero-click attack method and the continued targeting of WhatsApp users after the lawsuit are consistent with the information available in other reports. However, the claim about NSO Group's headquarters sharing a building with Apple, while intriguing, lacks verification from other sources and does not impact the core factual narrative of the story.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view of the legal battle between WhatsApp and NSO Group by including perspectives from both sides, such as testimony from NSO Group's CEO and WhatsApp's lawyer. However, it leans slightly towards WhatsApp's narrative, given the focus on their victory and the damages awarded. The article could benefit from more detailed insights into NSO Group's defense or rationale for their actions to present a more balanced perspective.

Clarity

The article is well-written, with a clear structure and logical flow that makes it easy to follow. It uses straightforward language to explain complex technical concepts, such as the zero-click attack method, ensuring that readers with varying levels of technical knowledge can understand the content. The tone is neutral and informative, contributing to the overall clarity of the piece.

Source quality

The article references credible sources, including TechCrunch, and mentions testimonies from key figures like NSO Group’s CEO and WhatsApp employees. The reliance on trial transcripts and documented testimonies enhances the credibility of the information presented. However, the story could be strengthened by explicitly citing additional independent sources or expert opinions to corroborate the claims further.

Transparency

The article is transparent in its reporting, providing detailed accounts of the trial and the methods used by NSO Group. It clearly states the source of its information, such as trial transcripts, which adds to its transparency. However, it could improve by disclosing any potential biases or conflicts of interest, especially considering the involvement of major tech companies like Meta and Apple.