UK Supreme Court Rejects Bahrain’s Immunity Claim in FinSpy Lawsuit
Summary
The UK Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that Bahrain cannot invoke state immunity to block a UK lawsuit by two dissidents who allege Bahraini officials infected their laptops with FinSpy. Bahrain has denied the allegations.
Key points
- The UK Supreme Court rejected Bahrain’s state-immunity defense in a 3-2 decision, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
- Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege Bahraini officials infected their laptops with FinSpy, likely in 2011.
- The alleged spyware activity included accessing files, intercepting communications, and using device microphones and cameras for surveillance.
- The court said the alleged conduct occurred in the UK and was sufficiently intrusive and wide-ranging to meet the bar for illegal harassment.
- Bahrain has asserted that the hacking allegations are false; the article does not report an independent confirmation of the alleged infection.
Article Details
- Event Type
- UK Supreme Court ruling rejecting Bahrain’s state-immunity defense in a spyware lawsuit
- Impact
- The ruling allows Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed’s lawsuit to proceed in the UK. They allege Bahrain infected their laptops with FinSpy and used it to access files, intercept communications, and surveil them through microphones and cameras; Bahrain has said the hacking claims are false.
People
Malware
Countries
BahrainThe UK Supreme Court ruled that Bahrain cannot use state immunity to block a lawsuit brought by two dissidents who say their devices were infected with FinSpy spyware.United KingdomThe United Kingdom’s Supreme Court ruled Monday that Bahrain can’t hide behind state immunity to block a lawsuit filed by two dissidents alleging the government infected their devices with spyware.