Feb 07, 2026 · 5 min read
Saudi Arabia Ordered to Pay £3 Million After Pegasus Spyware Attack on UK Satirist
A London High Court ruled that Saudi Arabia is liable for hacking a dissident's phone with Pegasus spyware, stripping the kingdom of sovereign immunity and setting a major precedent for spyware accountability.
The Ruling
The London High Court has ordered Saudi Arabia to pay more than £3 million (approximately $4.1 million USD) in damages to Ghanem Al-Masarir, a London based satirist and human rights activist whose phone was hacked with NSO Group's Pegasus spyware.
Justice Saini found that the phone hacking was "directed or authorised" by the Saudi government or its agents. The court also ruled that Saudi Arabia was "probably responsible" for a physical assault on Al-Masarir in London around the same time his phone was compromised.
The total damages awarded amount to £3,025,662.83.
Who Is Ghanem Al-Masarir
Al-Masarir is a Saudi dissident who fled to the United Kingdom and built a popular YouTube channel featuring satirical videos criticizing the Saudi government and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. His content drew millions of views and made him a prominent voice among Saudi dissidents abroad.
In 2018, around the same time journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Al-Masarir's phone was infected with Pegasus spyware. He also claims he was physically assaulted in London by agents working for the crown prince.
He sued the Saudi government in 2019, launching what would become a years long legal battle.
The Human Cost
The court heard testimony about the devastating personal impact of being targeted by state sponsored spyware and violence.
Seven years after the attack, Al-Masarir continues to suffer from severe depression. His once thriving career as a satirist has ended. He is unable to work at all or perform many basic daily activities, and rarely leaves his home.
This is the reality of being targeted by commercial spyware: total surveillance of your private communications, followed by psychological destruction that persists long after the initial attack.
Why This Ruling Matters
The legal significance of this case extends far beyond the damages awarded. The High Court ruled that Saudi Arabia does not have immunity under the UK's State Immunity Act 1978 for actions like this.
Normally, foreign governments enjoy broad legal immunity that protects them from lawsuits in other countries' courts. This ruling creates a precedent that deploying spyware against dissidents abroad may strip that protection.
For other governments that purchase and deploy commercial spyware against journalists, activists, and political opponents, this case sends a warning: courts may hold you financially liable even if the attack originates from foreign territory.
The Pegasus Problem
Pegasus is developed by NSO Group, an Israeli company that sells spyware exclusively to governments. Once installed on a target's phone, usually through zero click exploits that require no user interaction, Pegasus can access all messages, emails, photos, contacts, location data, and even activate the microphone and camera.
Over the past decade, Pegasus has been found on the phones of journalists, activists, lawyers, and politicians in dozens of countries. Saudi Arabia is among the governments known to have purchased and deployed the spyware.
The United States has placed NSO Group on its Commerce Department entity list, effectively banning American companies from doing business with the spyware maker. However, NSO Group continues to operate and seek access to new markets.
What This Means for Dissidents and Journalists
This ruling provides a template for other spyware victims to pursue legal action against the governments that targeted them. While collecting £3 million from a government that refuses to acknowledge the ruling presents practical challenges, the legal precedent is established.
More broadly, the case highlights the ongoing threat that commercial spyware poses to press freedom and political dissent. Governments continue to deploy these tools against critics with near impunity, knowing that the surveillance itself often achieves its goal of silencing opposition regardless of any eventual legal consequences.
For anyone who communicates sensitive information, whether as a journalist, activist, or simply someone critical of a government, the lesson is clear: your phone can become a surveillance device in the hands of determined state actors, and the personal consequences can be devastating.