WhatsApp under fire as Meta faces lawsuit claiming it can read your « private » messages 🔓

Cliquez ici pour lire en français

Imagine handing someone your diary after they swear they’ll lock it in a safe where only you have the key. Now imagine they’ve been keeping a spare key all along. That’s essentially what Meta, WhatsApp’s parent company, stands accused of doing to its 2 billion users. An international class action lawsuit filed last Friday in San Francisco is shaking the foundations of the world’s most popular messaging app.

The allegations rocking Meta’s empire ⚖️

A group of plaintiffs from India, Brazil, Australia, Mexico, and South Africa has taken the fight to US federal court. Their grievance? Meta allegedly maintained backdoor access to conversations that are supposedly protected by end-to-end encryption (E2EE).

According to the complaint, Meta and WhatsApp have the ability to « store, analyze, and access virtually all of WhatsApp users’ purportedly ‘private’ communications. » If proven true, this explosive allegation would transform WhatsApp’s privacy promise into what plaintiffs are calling a worldwide « fraud. »

The accusations go further. The lawsuit suggests the company retains the ability to decrypt and examine message content for data analysis and internal monitoring purposes. These revelations allegedly come backed by whistleblower testimony from inside the company.

Meta fires back hard 🛡️

Meta’s response was swift and unequivocal. Company spokesperson Andy Stone called the lawsuit « absurd » and a « frivolous work of fiction. » Going further, Meta says it will pursue legal sanctions against the plaintiffs’ attorneys for filing what it considers a baseless suit.

« Any claim that people’s WhatsApp messages are not encrypted is categorically false, » the tech giant insists. The company points out that WhatsApp has used the Signal protocol—an open-source standard widely recognized for its security—for a full decade to ensure end-to-end encryption of all conversations.

End-to-end encryption: promise or illusion? 🔬

To understand what’s at stake here, you need to grasp what end-to-end encryption actually means. In theory, this system ensures that only the sender and recipient can read a message. WhatsApp uses the Signal protocol, which generates unique encryption keys on each device. Your message gets encrypted on your phone and can only be decrypted on the recipient’s device. Even WhatsApp’s servers only see indecipherable data passing through.

But here’s where the debate gets technical and the gray areas emerge. End-to-end encryption protects message content, but not necessarily the metadata: who’s talking to whom, when, how frequently, from which devices, and so on. This information, while not revealing your actual conversations, can paint a surprisingly detailed picture of your life.

Moreover, implementation flaws can exist even when the underlying protocol is solid. Unencrypted backups to Google Drive or iCloud (disabled by default but available as an option), Meta AI’s integration into WhatsApp, or moderation systems that require access to certain reported messages—all these factors complicate the promise of absolute privacy.

An issue bigger than WhatsApp 🌍

This legal battle raises questions that extend far beyond WhatsApp’s case. At a time when digital privacy is becoming recognized as a fundamental right, and legislators worldwide are grappling with how to regulate tech giants, this lawsuit could set an important precedent.

On one side, authorities—like Europol and various governments—regularly pressure messaging platforms to create backdoors for fighting organized crime, terrorism, and child exploitation. On the other, privacy advocates argue that any backdoor, however « controlled, » weakens security for all users.

Meta finds itself caught in this constant tension: how do you satisfy government demands while preserving the privacy promise made to users? The current lawsuit suggests the company may have resolved this dilemma by creating secret access while continuing to publicly tout its commitment to privacy.

What should we take away from this storm? 💭

As the case winds its way through the courts—which could take years—several lessons are worth highlighting. First, end-to-end encryption isn’t an absolute guarantee if you don’t control all the variables: disable unencrypted backups, be cautious about what you share with AI chatbots, and understand what your metadata reveals about you.

Second, this case drives home an uncomfortable truth: in the world of free messaging apps owned by major corporations, we can never be entirely certain what’s happening behind the scenes. WhatsApp’s code isn’t open source, unlike Signal’s, making independent verification of its privacy claims impossible.

Third, beyond the Meta case, this legal battle forces us to examine our collective relationship with digital privacy. Are we willing to accept « justified » surveillance for greater security? Or do we consider communications privacy an inalienable right, even if it complicates law enforcement?

The coming months will reveal whether these accusations hold water or whether Meta can demonstrate the integrity of its system. In the meantime, your messages continue traveling across WhatsApp’s networks—encrypted or not, monitored or not. Only the courts can settle this one.

What about you—does this lawsuit change your trust in WhatsApp? Are you thinking about switching to alternatives like Signal or Telegram? Share your thoughts in the comments.