What a new lawsuit claims about WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption | Proton

This article discusses a recent class-action lawsuit alleging that Meta can bypass WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption to access user messages despite public promises of total privacy. While Meta dismisses these claims as "frivolous fiction," the case highlights the ongoing debate over whether users can truly trust closed-source privacy platforms.

---

1. Serious Allegations Against WhatsApp's Privacy

A significant legal battle has emerged in the U.S. federal court system. A newly filed class-action lawsuit claims that WhatsApp's famous promise of end-to-end encryption (E2EE) might be misleading to its billions of users. For years, WhatsApp has marketed itself as a platform where privacy is the priority, frequently using the slogan that "not even WhatsApp" can see what you are sending. 🛡️

The lawsuit, filed on January 23, 2026, in the Northern District of California, challenges this narrative. It suggests that there is a gap between what Meta (the parent company of WhatsApp) says in public and what actually happens behind the scenes.

Any claim that people's WhatsApp messages are not encrypted is categorically false and absurd. WhatsApp has been end-to-end encrypted using the Signal protocol for a decade. This lawsuit is a frivolous work of fiction.

---

2. Whistleblower Claims and Internal Access

The core of the lawsuit relies on information from unnamed whistleblowers. These individuals allege that Meta staff have a specific way to bypass the encryption that is supposed to keep messages private. According to the complaint, employees can use an internal "tasking system" to request access to specific WhatsApp accounts. 🕵️‍♂️

The claims are quite shocking: once a request is approved, the lawsuit alleges that messages can be viewed in near real time and even historically. Most importantly, it claims this happens without needing an extra "decryption step," which would imply that the encryption isn't as impenetrable as advertised. This directly contradicts the testimony Meta has given to lawmakers and its own marketing materials.

---

3. Fact vs. Allegation

It is crucial to take a step back and look at what we actually know. While the lawsuit makes bold claims, it currently lacks technical evidence or cryptographic proof that a "backdoor" exists. In simple terms, a "backdoor" is a secret way to bypass security, and so far, no one has proven there is one in WhatsApp's code. 💻

We do know from previous reports that WhatsApp can see messages if a user manually reports them for abuse. We also know they collect a lot of metadata—which is information about who you talk to and when, rather than the content of the message itself. However, these known facts are very different from the lawsuit's claim that Meta can routinely read any message they want.

---

4. The Problem with Closed-Source Trust

The fundamental issue raised by this case is one of trust. Because WhatsApp is "closed-source," its inner workings are a secret kept by Meta. Unlike "open-source" software, where anyone can check the code to see if the encryption is working correctly, WhatsApp users have to take the company's word for it. 🤐

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is meant to be a technical guarantee: the "keys" to unlock your messages only live on your phone and the phone of the person you are texting. If these keys are never shared, no one else—not even the company providing the service—should be able to read them.

---

Conclusion

As this legal case moves forward, it serves as a powerful reminder of a core privacy principle: true security shouldn't require you to "just trust" a corporation. For encryption to be truly reliable, it should be verifiable by independent experts. Whether the lawsuit is proven true or not, it has reignited a vital conversation about transparency in the digital age. 📱✨