US Judge Finds Israel's NSO Group Liable for Hacking in WhatsApp Lawsuit

Israeli cyber firm NSO Group's exhibition stand is seen at "ISDEF 2019", an international defense and homeland security expo, in Tel Aviv, Israel June 4, 2019. REUTERS/Keren Manor/File Photo
Israeli cyber firm NSO Group's exhibition stand is seen at "ISDEF 2019", an international defense and homeland security expo, in Tel Aviv, Israel June 4, 2019. REUTERS/Keren Manor/File Photo
TT

US Judge Finds Israel's NSO Group Liable for Hacking in WhatsApp Lawsuit

Israeli cyber firm NSO Group's exhibition stand is seen at "ISDEF 2019", an international defense and homeland security expo, in Tel Aviv, Israel June 4, 2019. REUTERS/Keren Manor/File Photo
Israeli cyber firm NSO Group's exhibition stand is seen at "ISDEF 2019", an international defense and homeland security expo, in Tel Aviv, Israel June 4, 2019. REUTERS/Keren Manor/File Photo

A US judge ruled on Friday in favor of Meta Platforms' WhatsApp in a lawsuit accusing Israel's NSO Group of exploiting a bug in the messaging app to install spy software allowing unauthorized surveillance.

US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland, California, granted a motion by WhatsApp and found NSO liable for hacking and breach of contract.

The case will now proceed to a trial only on the issue of damages, Hamilton said. NSO Group did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment, according to Reuters.

Will Cathcart, the head of WhatsApp, said the ruling is a win for privacy.

"We spent five years presenting our case because we firmly believe that spyware companies could not hide behind immunity or avoid accountability for their unlawful actions," Cathcart said in a social media post.

"Surveillance companies should be on notice that illegal spying will not be tolerated."

Cybersecurity experts welcomed the judgment.

John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher with Canadian internet watchdog Citizen Lab — which first brought to light NSO’s Pegasus spyware in 2016 — called the judgment a landmark ruling with “huge implications for the spyware industry.”

“The entire industry has hidden behind the claim that whatever their customers do with their hacking tools, it's not their responsibility,” he said in an instant message. “Today's ruling makes it clear that NSO Group is in fact responsible for breaking numerous laws.”

WhatsApp in 2019 sued NSO seeking an injunction and damages, accusing it of accessing WhatsApp servers without permission six months earlier to install the Pegasus software on victims' mobile devices. The lawsuit alleged the intrusion allowed the surveillance of 1,400 people, including journalists, human rights activists and dissidents.

NSO had argued that Pegasus helps law enforcement and intelligence agencies fight crime and protect national security and that its technology is intended to help catch terrorists, pedophiles and hardened criminals.

NSO appealed a trial judge's 2020 refusal to award it "conduct-based immunity," a common law doctrine protecting foreign officials acting in their official capacity.

Upholding that ruling in 2021, the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals called it an "easy case" because NSO's mere licensing of Pegasus and offering technical support did not shield it from liability under a federal law called the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which took precedence over common law.

The US Supreme Court last year turned away NSO's appeal of the lower court's decision, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.



Google Offers to Loosen Search Deals in US Antitrust Case Remedy

The Google sign is shown on one of the company's office buildings in Irvine, California, US, October 20, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Blake
The Google sign is shown on one of the company's office buildings in Irvine, California, US, October 20, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Blake
TT

Google Offers to Loosen Search Deals in US Antitrust Case Remedy

The Google sign is shown on one of the company's office buildings in Irvine, California, US, October 20, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Blake
The Google sign is shown on one of the company's office buildings in Irvine, California, US, October 20, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Blake

Alphabet's Google proposed on Friday a loosening of its agreements with Apple and others to set Google as the default search engine on new devices, in a bid to address a US ruling that it unlawfully dominates online search.

The proposal is muchu narrower than the government's push to make Google sell its Chrome browser, which Google called a drastic attempt to intervene in the search market.

Google urged US District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington to move cautiously in deciding what the company must do to restore competition, after his ruling that the company holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. Courts have cautioned against imposing antitrust remedies that chill innovation, Google said in court papers.

That is especially true "in an environment where remarkable artificial intelligence innovations are rapidly changing how people interact with many online products and services, including search engines," Google said.

While Google plans to appeal that ruling at the end of the case, it says the upcoming "remedies" phase should focus on its distribution agreements with browser developers, mobile device manufacturers, and wireless carriers.

The judge found the agreements give Google a "major, largely unseen advantage over its rivals" and result in most devices in the US coming pre-loaded with Google's search engine.

The agreements are hard to exit, the judge said, especially for Android manufacturers, which must agree to install Google search in order to include Google's Play Store on their devices.

To fix that, Google could make them non-exclusive and, for Android phone manufacturers, unbundle its Play Store from Chrome and search, the company said in its proposal.

Google would allow browser developers that agree to set its search engine as the default to revisit that decision annually under the proposal.

REVENUE SHARING

Unlike the government's proposal, Google's would not end revenue sharing agreements, which pass a portion of ad revenue Google makes from search to the device and software companies that present it as the default search engine.

Independent browser developers including Mozilla, which makes Firefox, have said the funds are crucial to their operations. Apple received an estimated $20 billion from its agreement with Google in 2022 alone.

Kamyl Bazbaz, spokesperson for search engine competitor DuckDuckGo, said the proposal attempts to maintain the status quo.

"Once a court finds a violation of competition laws, the remedy must not only stop the illegal conduct and prevent its recurrence, but restore competition in the affected markets," he said.

Google's proposal sets the stage for a trial Mehta will hold in April, where the US Department of Justice and a coalition of states will seek to show the need for wide-ranging remedies, including making Google sell off Chrome and potentially its Android mobile operating system.

The government plans to call witnesses from OpenAI, AI search startup Perplexity, and Microsoft, according to court papers.

Prosecutors also want Google to stop paying to be the default search engine, and cease investments in search rivals and query-based AI products, and license its search results and technology to rivals.

The proposals aim to spur innovation in online search, where Mehta found Google's overwhelming market share keeps competitors from gathering the search data needed to improve their products, and prevent Google from extending its dominance in search to AI.