San Francisco, California — Meta Platforms Inc. has secured a significant legal victory against the NSO Group, a firm known for developing intrusive spyware. A jury has ordered NSO to pay $259 million to Meta, stemming from a 2019 cyberattack that compromised the phones of over 1,400 WhatsApp users with malware from its Pegasus software.
This attack, which analysts described as characteristic of state-sponsored surveillance operations, exploited a “zero-click” vulnerability. This means that infected users did nothing to trigger the installation of the spyware; a simple phone call was sufficient for the malicious software to enter their devices.
NSO Group asserts that it sells its software exclusively to government entities for legitimate law enforcement purposes, and it has consistently denied any involvement in the exploitation of its tools against specific individuals or organizations. However, the jury found the company liable for its role in the attacks against Meta’s users, marking a critical moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding spyware.
Meta hailed the jury’s verdict, viewing it as a landmark decision against what it terms a “notorious foreign spyware merchant.” The award not only compensates Meta for the costs incurred—amounting to approximately $685,000—but also includes $257 million in punitive damages. Meta characterized this ruling as “the first victory against illegal spyware,” calling it a vital deterrent to a growing industry that poses risks to privacy and security.
In the wake of the ruling, Meta has intensified its campaign against the use of spyware, urging the tech industry to join forces against such surveillance tools that have become prevalent. It noted that the trial has brought to light the intricate and secretive operations behind spyware vendors. “We must all defend against these malicious technologies,” Meta said in a statement.
To further this cause, Meta has released transcripts from testimonies given by NSO executives, including statements from CEO Yaron Shohat and other key figures. This move aims to shed light on the inner workings of NSO Group, thereby assisting researchers and journalists in their investigations into the surveillance industry.
Meta is not alone in its criticism of NSO. Other major technology companies, including Apple, have condemned NSO’s practices. Apple challenged NSO in court in 2021, joining efforts with various organizations to expose the pervasive use of Pegasus spyware through an initiative known as The Pegasus Project. The project captures the widespread use of this technology, which has been employed to surveil journalists and activists around the world.
NGOs like Amnesty International have been vocal about the dangers associated with NSO’s operations. In 2022, the organization expanded calls for a ban on the Pegasus software, highlighting its use against UK government officials and citizens in various countries, including Mexico and India. The U.S. government blacklisted Pegasus in 2021, following allegations of its association with state surveillance.
The verdict concludes a protracted legal battle that has unfolded over six years as Meta grappled with the implications of NSO’s actions. Critics, including former Amnesty International Secretary General Agnès Callamard, have described NSO Group as a company that, while claiming a focus on legitimacy, profits from severe human rights abuses.
NSO Group has vowed to uphold human rights, stating it investigates credible claims of misuse of its technology. The firm maintains that it only provides its services to aid in combating terrorism and other forms of serious crime.
As for whether Meta will collect any of the awarded damages, uncertainty remains. Shohat has indicated that NSO is currently navigating financial challenges, asserting, “my company never spied on anyone.” Meanwhile, Meta is actively pursuing legal injunctions against the usage of Pegasus, emphasizing its commitment to supporting digital rights initiatives aimed at protecting individuals from such invasive tactics.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and any inaccuracies in the facts and circumstances reported may arise. Requests for removal, retraction, or correction can be made by emailing [email protected].