Supreme Court upholds WhatsApp lawsuit against Israeli Spyware firm

[NewYorkExpress]

https://apnews.com/article/technology-email-and-messaging-mobile-apps-meta-platforms-inc-israel-58b1f2bc7a457b76db06dcbc9f320411

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an Israeli spyware maker’s bid to derail a high-profile lawsuit filed by the WhatsApp messaging service.

The justices left in place lower court rulings against the Israeli firm, NSO Group. WhatsApp claims that NSO targeted some 1,400 users of the encrypted messaging service with highly sophisticated spyware.

WhatsApp parent Facebook, now called Meta Platforms Inc., is trying to block NSO from Facebook platforms and servers and recover unspecified damages.

NSO argued that it should be recognized as a foreign government agent and therefore be entitled to immunity under U.S. law limiting lawsuits against foreign countries. The request appeals a pair of earlier federal court rulings that rejected similar arguments by the Israeli company.

The Biden administration recommended that the court turn away the appeal. The Justice Department wrote that “NSO plainly is not entitled to immunity here.”

NSO’s flagship product, Pegasus, allows operators to covertly infiltrate a target’s mobile phone, gaining access to messages and contacts, the camera and microphone and location history. Only government law enforcement agencies can purchase the product and all sales are approved by Israel’s Defense Ministry, NSO said. It does not identify its clients.

[Donerail]

again, "not granting cert" ≠ "upholds"

[NewYorkExpress]

again, "not granting cert" ≠ "upholds"

Again, if the Supreme had granted cert here, why would they overturn this? I feel justified in titling this as upholds for that reason.

[Donerail]

again, "not granting cert" ≠ "upholds"

Again, if the Supreme had granted cert here, why would they overturn this?

For the reasons advanced by the petitioners in their petition for cert? There's an interesting question here about whether a particular statute was intended to displace common-law sovereign immunity for agents of foreign governments; they point to a split in authority between the Ninth Circuit decision below and [their interpretation of] decisions in the 4th and DC Circuits. Not unusual for the Court to take such a case to resolve a circuit split about how to interpret a federal statute.

And you're missing the point. When the Court decides a case, it becomes binding law nationwide. When they deny a petition for cert, the lower court precedent remains law only in the relevant circuit (here, the Ninth). "Upholds" suggests they have affirmatively embraced Meta's argument here rather than declining to determine whether it is correct or not.