Meta Under Scrutiny Over WhatsApp Encryption Claims

U.S. authorities have reportedly investigated allegations that Meta has the capability to read users’ encrypted messages on WhatsApp, according to Bloomberg reports that have intensified debate over the platform’s privacy guarantees.

The investigation follows a lawsuit filed last week claiming that Meta “can access virtually all of WhatsApp users’ purportedly ‘private’ communications” despite the company’s assurances of end-to-end encryption. Meta has forcefully denied these allegations, describing the lawsuit’s claims as “categorically false and absurd.”

The social media giant suggested the lawsuit represents a tactical maneuver to support the NSO Group, an Israeli firm known for developing Pegasus spyware that has been used to target journalists, activists, and government officials worldwide. Meta pointed out that the law firm behind the current lawsuit, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, is also representing NSO Group in its appeal against a $167 million judgment awarded to WhatsApp last year.

“We’re pursuing sanctions against Quinn Emanuel for filing a meritless lawsuit that was designed purely to grab headlines,” said Carl Woog, a Meta spokesperson. “This is the same firm that is trying to help NSO overturn an injunction that barred their operations for targeting journalists and government officials with spyware.”

Quinn Emanuel attributes its allegations to unnamed “courageous” whistleblowers from multiple countries including Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Africa. Adam Wolfson, a partner at the firm, defended their position: “Our colleagues’ defence of NSO on appeal has nothing to do with the facts disclosed to us and which form the basis of the lawsuit we brought for worldwide WhatsApp users.”

Wolfson further claimed that Meta’s denials have been “carefully worded in a way that stops short of denying the central allegation in the complaint – that Meta has the ability to read WhatsApp messages, regardless of its claims about end-to-end encryption.”

Cybersecurity experts have expressed skepticism about the lawsuit’s claims. Steven Murdoch, professor of security engineering at University College London, described the lawsuit as “a bit strange” and questioned the credibility of the unnamed whistleblowers. “I would be very surprised if what they are claiming is actually true,” Murdoch said.

He noted that such a significant security breach would be difficult to conceal within a large organization like Meta. “It’s very hard to keep secrets inside a company. If there was something as scandalous as this going on, I think it’s very likely that it would have leaked out from someone within WhatsApp.”

While Bloomberg reported that the U.S. Department of Commerce had investigated these claims, a department spokesperson dismissed these assertions as “unsubstantiated.”

WhatsApp, which boasts over two billion users globally, has built its reputation on providing end-to-end encrypted messaging. This security feature theoretically ensures that messages can only be read by their sender and intended recipient, with no possibility for interception or decoding by WhatsApp’s servers or any third parties.

This stands in contrast to platforms like Telegram, which encrypts messages between users and its own servers but potentially retains the technical capability to access message content.

A senior technology executive who spoke anonymously noted that while WhatsApp’s privacy practices regarding metadata collection “leave much to be desired,” the “idea that WhatsApp can selectively and retroactively access the content of [end-to-end encrypted] individual chats is a mathematical impossibility.”

The controversy comes at a time of heightened global concern over digital privacy, with messaging platforms increasingly caught between user privacy demands and pressure from governments for access to communications for security purposes.

Meta maintains that WhatsApp’s encryption remains secure. “We’ll continue to stand up against those trying to deny people’s right to private communication,” Woog stated, as the company prepares to challenge what it describes as a meritless lawsuit designed to generate headlines rather than substantive legal claims.