WhatsApp Inc. et al v. NSO Group Technologies Limited et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WHATSAPP INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES
LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 19-cv-07123-PJH
ORDER RESOLVING DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO
PROPOSED INJUNCTION ORDER
Re: Dkt. 805, 807
Defendants filed a response and objection to plaintiffs’ proposed injunction order,
and plaintiffs filed a response. See Dkt. 807.
Defendants first argue that the proposed injunction should “take into account the
provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(f),” covering United States law enforcement activity.
However, as plaintiffs argue, defendants have provided no evidence that the United
States has ever used Pegasus for law enforcement activities, nor was the law
enforcement exception applicable to this litigation. Defendants propose a “sweeping
carveout” that is simply not supported by the evidence or findings in this case. See Dkt.
805-1 at 4. Accordingly, defendants’ first objection is overruled.
Second, defendants argue that the injunction should not prohibit collection of data
from target users’ phones if no Whatsapp servers are accessed. This is an argument
that has been fully raised and considered throughout this case, particularly at the hearing
on the motion for permanent injunction. The court has already rejected this argument,
and defendants present no basis for reconsidering it now – accordingly, their second
objection is overruled.
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 808 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants’ third and final objection is that “the exclusion of foreign sovereign
governments should be meaningful” by, for example, making clear that “the deletion of
Whatsapp data does not apply to foreign customers.” While the court believes that
paragraph 1 of the proposed injunction, as written, already makes clear that
“[n]otwithstanding anything herein, neither Defendants’ foreign sovereign customers nor
Defendants’ outside counsel are Prohibited Parties,” for the sake of clarity, the court will
make the following revisions to paragraph 4 (added language is underlined):
The Prohibited Parties are required to delete and destroy any and all
computer code or technologies that use, access, or depend on the WhatsApp
Platform, including the WhatsApp Installation Server (“WIS”), to delete all
data obtained or derived from use of or access to the WhatsApp Platform in
the Prohibited Parties’ possession, and to disable customer access to any
and all computer code or technologies maintained by the Prohibited Parties
that use, access, or depend on the WhatsApp Platform.
To the extent that defendants request further changes to paragraph 4, that
objection is overruled.
The court will issue a separate order regarding defendants’ request to stay the
injunction order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 12, 2025
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 808 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 2