## Background Information

On January 23, 2026, an international group of plaintiffs [filed a class-action lawsuit](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-25/lawsuit-claims-meta-can-see-whatsapp-chats-in-breach-of-privacy) against Meta Platforms, Inc. in US District Court in San Francisco, alleging that WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption claims are false. The plaintiffs—from Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Africa—allege that Meta and WhatsApp “store, analyze, and can access virtually all of WhatsApp users’ purportedly ‘private’ communications.”

WhatsApp has promoted end-to-end encryption as a core privacy feature since implementing the [Signal protocol](https://signal.org/docs/) in 2016. The app displays in-chat notices stating that “only people in this chat can read, listen to, or share” messages. End-to-end encryption means that encryption keys are stored only on users’ devices, theoretically preventing even the service provider from accessing message content.

The lawsuit references unnamed “whistleblowers” who allegedly provided information about Meta’s ability to access messages. One claim suggests employees could submit internal requests to retrieve messages in real time using user identifiers.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone called the allegations “categorically false and absurd” and described the lawsuit as “a frivolous work of fiction,” stating that WhatsApp has been end-to-end encrypted using the Signal protocol for a decade. WhatsApp head Will Cathcart stated the company “can’t read messages because the encryption keys are stored on your phone.”

In September 2025, former WhatsApp security head Attaullah Baig separately sued Meta over alleged “systemic cybersecurity failures.”

This question asks whether credible evidence will emerge substantiating the claim that Meta can access WhatsApp message content despite its encryption assurances.

-----

## Resolution Criteria

This question resolves Yes if, before January 1, 2027, any of the following occurs:

1. Court finding: A court of competent jurisdiction issues a ruling or finding (even preliminary) that Meta has the technical capability to access WhatsApp message content despite end-to-end encryption claims.

1. Regulatory finding: A government regulatory body (e.g., FTC, EU Data Protection Authority, or equivalent) officially concludes that WhatsApp’s encryption claims are materially false or misleading regarding Meta’s ability to access message content.

1. Official admission: Meta, WhatsApp, or an authorized company representative officially acknowledges that the company can access the content of end-to-end encrypted WhatsApp messages (excluding messages that users have voluntarily reported, backed up to unencrypted cloud storage, or otherwise shared outside the encrypted channel).

1. Independent technical verification: A peer-reviewed security research paper, or findings from at least two independent and reputable security research organizations (e.g., Citizen Lab, EFF, academic institutions), demonstrates a technical mechanism by which Meta can access WhatsApp message content despite claimed end-to-end encryption.

1. Authenticated internal documentation: Internal Meta documents are made public through legal discovery, government investigation, or credible journalistic investigation (e.g., from outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, Bloomberg, or similar) that demonstrate Meta has the capability to access end-to-end encrypted message content.

This question resolves No if none of the above occurs before January 1, 2027.

Important clarifications:

- Mere allegations in lawsuits, regardless of plaintiff credibility, do not constitute resolution.

- The ability to access metadata (sender, recipient, timestamps, etc.) does not count—only message content access qualifies.

- Access to messages through cloud backups, reported messages, or messages forwarded to unencrypted platforms does not count, as these are known exceptions to E2E encryption.

- A settlement in the current lawsuit without admission of wrongdoing does not resolve this question Yes.

-----

## Fine Print

- If Meta implements a new feature or policy change after January 2026 that deliberately creates a backdoor or reduces encryption, this does not retroactively resolve the question Yes—the question specifically concerns whether current claims about encryption have been false.

- “Credible” for journalistic sources means publications with established editorial standards and fact-checking processes. Social media posts, unverified leaks, or claims from parties with obvious conflicts of interest (such as competing platforms) do not qualify on their own.

- If multiple partial findings emerge that individually don’t meet the threshold but collectively establish the claim, question resolution will be at admin discretion based on the preponderance of evidence.