Users from several countries, as well as former moderators, accuse Meta of having access to WhatsApp messages that are supposed to be confidential.

For years, WhatsApp has presented itself as an unhackable messaging service: end-to-end encryption, enabled by default, is supposed to guarantee that only the sender and recipient can read the messages.

The official website is clear: "No one outside the chat, not even WhatsApp, can read, listen to, or share" their content. Meta has often invoked this technical protection to deny access to governments, including during criminal investigations. However, very serious allegations are now shaking this promise of absolute confidentiality.

Disturbing testimonies from former moderators

According to an internal report dated July 2025, reviewed by Bloomberg, two former content moderators, recruited through Accenture for Meta, testified before an agent of the U.S. Department of Commerce. They allege that some Meta employees had unlimited access to messages that were supposed to be encrypted. One of them even reported speaking with a Facebook employee who confirmed being able to access chat histories in connection with criminal cases.

They also mention a fairly streamlined recruitment process for colleagues based abroad (Israel, Ireland, India, China), who used the same internal tools as their American counterparts.

Meta rejects these accusations in the strongest possible terms. Its spokesperson, Andy Stone, told Bloomberg: "What these individuals are claiming is impossible: WhatsApp, its employees, and its contractors cannot access users' encrypted communications." The Commerce Department also responded quickly: its spokesperson called the allegations "unsubstantiated" and outside the jurisdiction of the relevant agent, clarifying that the bureau is not investigating Meta or WhatsApp for violations of export rules.

An international class action lawsuit

In late January 2026, a group of users from Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Africa filed a class-action lawsuit in San Francisco federal court. They accuse Meta of storing, analyzing, and accessing "virtually all" communications marked as private, relying on information from anonymous whistleblowers. The law firm Quinn Emanuel, which represents them, points out that Meta's denials are carefully worded, avoiding an explicit denial of the technical access capability.

Meta calls the procedure "frivolous" and announces its intention to sue the lawyers. The company even suggests a link to the NSO Group case, the Israeli company behind the Pegasus spyware, which was ordered to pay more than $167 million to WhatsApp last year – the Quinn Emanuel law firm is representing NSO on appeal.

However, WhatsApp acknowledges occasional and strictly controlled access: when a user reports a problematic message, the application can receive up to the last five exchanges, along with metadata (identifier, date, content type, etc.). But testimonies suggest much broader, more regular access, extending far beyond these exceptional cases.

Technical doubt and Meta's history

Outside experts remain highly skeptical. Steven Murdoch, a security professor at UCL, interviewed by The Guardian, considers the complaint "a bit strange" and doubts that such a practice could remain secret without a massive internal leak. Another expert, an industry executive, even believes that circumventing true end-to-end encryption would be "mathematically impossible."

MetaTrader has already paid a heavy price for its privacy lapses: a record $5 billion fine was imposed by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2019, along with ongoing monitoring. The company has since strengthened its privacy teams. As recently as 2025, Mark Zuckerberg stated: "Encryption means the company running the service can't see anything."

Meta's stock price dipped slightly following these revelations. So far, neither the investigation nor the complaint has resulted in formal charges. But for the billions of users who chose WhatsApp precisely for its supposedly impenetrable encryption, this doubt, even if it remains to be proven, is enough to create genuine concern.