Federal Judge Rejects WhatsApp's Contempt Request Against NSO Group Over Spyware Allegations

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to hold Israeli cyber‑espionage firm NSO Group in contempt of a 2025 court order that barred the company from using WhatsApp to disseminate spyware.

WhatsApp had argued that NSO continued to target users of its messaging platform despite the injunction, alleging that the firm leveraged the app to deliver the notorious Pegasus surveillance tool.

The company’s contempt motion sought to enforce the earlier order by imposing sanctions on NSO, contending that the firm’s alleged activities violated the court’s directive and endangered the privacy of millions of users worldwide.

In his ruling, the judge said the plaintiff had not supplied enough concrete information to demonstrate a clear breach of the injunction. Without detailed evidence showing how NSO allegedly used WhatsApp to spread malicious code, the court could not find the firm in contempt.

Legal experts note that contempt proceedings require a high evidentiary threshold: plaintiffs must prove not only that a violation occurred but also provide specific facts linking the defendant’s conduct to the prohibited activity.

The decision does not clear NSO of the underlying accusations. Instead, it underscores the difficulty of proving technical wrongdoing in a civil forum, especially when the alleged methods are concealed and involve sophisticated software.

NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware has been the subject of international scrutiny, with reports linking it to surveillance of journalists, activists and political figures. U.S. authorities have previously charged the company for illicit sales, and several governments have imposed sanctions.

WhatsApp indicated it may appeal the ruling or pursue additional discovery to obtain the missing details needed to satisfy the contempt standard. The outcome could shape how technology companies enforce injunctions against cyber‑espionage actors.

The case highlights the broader challenge of holding state‑linked surveillance firms accountable through civil litigation, where the line between technical evidence and legal proof can be difficult to cross.