San Francisco, California – NSO Group has filed an appeal following a jury’s decision that awarded $168 million to WhatsApp for the company’s alleged facilitation of spyware attacks on approximately 1,400 mobile devices. This legal battle centers on the company’s controversial zero-click surveillance technology, which allows government clients to infiltrate phones without any interaction from the users.
In a court filing submitted on Thursday, NSO Group requested that the federal judge presiding over the case in Northern California either significantly lower the punitive damages awarded or allow for a new trial. The punitive damages were initially set at $167.2 million, alongside $445,000 in compensatory damages, marking a notable setback for the spyware manufacturer.
The Pegasus surveillance product, reportedly used against WhatsApp users, has been implicated in numerous abuses worldwide, affecting civil society members, diplomats, and journalists. A spokesperson for NSO has opted not to comment on the ongoing litigation.
A representative from WhatsApp stated that the appeal reflects an anticipated effort by NSO to evade accountability. WhatsApp sees the jury’s decision as a strong statement from American citizens denouncing NSO’s actions that took place in 2019 against both the company and its users.
In its appeal, NSO contended that the financial penalty imposed is exorbitant and not sustainable for the company. The filing claims the punitive damages far exceed NSO’s financial capacity and argues that they should not surpass the compensatory damages. Citing Supreme Court precedents, NSO posited that punitive damages should typically be limited to a four-to-one ratio compared to compensatory damages, suggesting a justifiable maximum award of around $1.77 million.
NSO’s filing expressed concern that the jury’s decision appeared intended to drive the company into financial ruin. It stated, “The peculiar amount awarded in punitive damages strongly indicates the jury’s aim to effectively eliminate NSO.” The company argued that such an outcome is contrary to legal standards regarding due process.
Further criticism of the punitive damages was raised based on the assertion that the company’s conduct was not egregious enough to warrant such harsh penalties. NSO argued that the harm incurred by WhatsApp was largely financial rather than physical, a distinction they claim is crucial in evaluating reprehensibility.
Before the trial commenced, NSO had informed Judge Phyllis Hamilton that its spyware is intended solely for use by governmental bodies in the investigation of terrorism and crime. However, a significant number of victims in the case were identified as journalists, dissidents, and diplomats. Judge Hamilton prohibited NSO from presenting evidence regarding lawful uses of its technology, ruling that the company could not sufficiently explain the circumstances under which its clients had accessed victims’ devices.
NSO characterized this exclusion as unduly prejudicial, stating that its technology is licensed strictly for legitimate government investigations under respective national laws. The company argued that the mere deployment of its technology should not be construed as reprehensible, particularly since it operates by sending innocuous messages through WhatsApp servers.
This case continues to raise questions about the ethical implications of surveillance technology and its usage by governments, as well as the balance between privacy rights and national security interests.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI. The people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate; any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.