Meta Platforms has escalated its long-running legal battle with Israeli spyware company NSO Group, filing a federal court motion for contempt on Monday after allegedly discovering new spear-phishing attempts linked to the controversial firm targeting WhatsApp users.

The social media giant said its messaging service recently disrupted fresh attacks that mirrored previous “1-click” phishing campaigns, in which users are tricked into clicking malicious links that can compromise their devices without requiring passwords or further interaction. Meta said it took down test accounts and groups created by NSO on its platform as part of the response.

“These attempts were similar to previous ‘1-click phishing campaigns’ aimed to trick users into clicking malicious links and direct them to external websites,” the company said in a blog post.

The move comes after a U.S. court issued a permanent injunction last year barring NSO from targeting WhatsApp or its users. While the court significantly reduced the punitive damages NSO owed Meta, from an initial $167 million down to $4 million, the injunction itself was viewed as a major blow to the spyware firm, which has faced widespread accusations of enabling human rights abuses through its Pegasus tool.

Meta’s latest filing accuses NSO of violating that permanent injunction. The company said the new attempts were part of a pattern of behavior it has been monitoring closely. By seeking contempt charges, Meta is signaling it will not tolerate continued efforts to undermine the security of its platforms, even from sophisticated state-linked actors.

NSO Group, which has been blacklisted by the U.S. government for activities “contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States,” has long maintained that its tools are intended only for legitimate law enforcement and intelligence purposes against terrorists and criminals. However, investigations by Amnesty International, Citizen Lab, and others have repeatedly linked Pegasus to the targeting of journalists, activists, opposition figures, and human rights defenders around the world.

Meta’s action also underscores the ongoing arms race between platform defenders and offensive cyber tools. “1-click” attacks are particularly dangerous because they require minimal user interaction, making them effective even against cautious targets. WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption provides strong privacy protections, but sophisticated actors continue to probe for weaknesses in the broader ecosystem, including through social engineering and zero-click or one-click exploits.

Last month, Meta was joined by 12 prominent civil rights organizations, security researchers, privacy advocates, and digital rights experts who filed amicus briefs supporting the permanent injunction and opposing NSO’s appeal. This coalition indicates growing concern over the proliferation of commercial spyware and its potential for abuse by both authoritarian and democratic governments.

The legal fight serves multiple purposes for Meta, which includes protecting its users, bolstering the security of one of the world’s largest messaging platforms (with over 2 billion daily users), and sending a strong signal to other surveillance vendors. The company has invested heavily in security, encryption, and threat intelligence in recent years, partly in response to high-profile spyware incidents.

This latest chapter fits into a larger pattern. Tech companies like Meta, Apple, and Google have increasingly clashed with governments and spyware firms over encryption, backdoors, and user privacy. Apple has sued NSO in the past, and WhatsApp itself has taken legal action to protect its users.

These efforts underpin a growing recognition that commercial spyware poses systemic risks to democratic norms, journalist safety, and civil society.

At the same time, law enforcement agencies worldwide argue they need powerful tools to combat serious crime and terrorism in an encrypted world. This makes it difficult to strike the right balance, and cases like Meta vs. NSO often become proxies for larger debates about sovereignty, security, and human rights in the digital age.

As spyware capabilities grow more sophisticated, the cat-and-mouse game between platforms and attackers is likely to intensify, with significant implications for privacy, security, and trust in digital services. Meta’s contempt motion is expected to keep pressure on NSO while the appeal process continues.

The global airline industry’s post-pandemic recovery is facing its most serious test in years, with soaring jet fuel prices expected to slash carrier profits by nearly half in 2026 and expose deep vulnerabilities across the aviation sector.

The warning from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) highlights how the economic fallout from the U.S.-Iran conflict is rippling far beyond energy markets, threatening airline earnings, ticket affordability, and the pace of growth in global air travel.

According to IATA, net profits for airlines worldwide are projected to fall from $45 billion in 2025 to $23 billion in 2026, while industry-wide net margins are expected to shrink from 4.2% to just 2.0%. For an industry that traditionally operates on razor-thin margins, the decline indicates that external shocks are rapidly eroding profitability.

Fuel, which remains the single largest operating expense for most airlines, remains the leading cause of the problem.

IATA Director General Willie Walsh said average jet fuel prices are expected to be 70% higher than a year earlier, adding roughly $100 billion to the industry’s collective fuel bill. The surge followed disruptions in global energy markets triggered by the conflict between the United States and Iran, which sent oil prices above $100 per barrel and pushed jet fuel prices sharply higher.

The situation marks a recurring challenge for airlines. While carriers have largely recovered passenger traffic lost during the COVID-19 pandemic, they remain highly exposed to geopolitical crises that can rapidly drive up fuel costs.

The impact is already visible across major aviation markets.

Data cited by IATA show jet fuel prices jumped 103% in March compared with the previous month and remained more than 62% higher than a year earlier by early June. In the United States, airlines spent $5.06 billion on fuel in March, a 56.4% increase from February and roughly 30% higher than the same month in 2025.

The pressure is forcing airlines into a difficult balancing act. Raising fares can offset some of the higher costs, but excessive price increases risk dampening demand, particularly among leisure travelers who are more sensitive to economic uncertainty.

That challenge is becoming increasingly apparent.

Although travel demand remains relatively resilient, airlines are reporting changes in customer behavior. Travelers are waiting longer before booking flights, making revenue forecasting more difficult. At the same time, carriers face growing uncertainty over how much additional cost consumers are willing to absorb.

An IATA survey found that 86% of travelers expect ticket prices to move in line with fuel costs, while nearly half anticipate spending more on travel this year than they did previously. However, there are limits to how much airlines can pass on before demand begins to weaken.

The risks are especially acute for carriers whose finances have not fully recovered from the pandemic. Many airlines spent years rebuilding balance sheets damaged by COVID-era travel restrictions. Those companies now face another external shock before fully restoring financial strength.

Airlines in the Gulf region may be particularly exposed because of their geographic proximity to the conflict and their heavy dependence on long-haul international traffic.

The divergence between stronger and weaker carriers is already becoming more evident. European low-cost airline EasyJet reported a first-half pre-tax loss of £552 million and disclosed an additional £25 million fuel burden during March alone. Germany’s Lufthansa expects fuel expenses to increase by €1.7 billion this year, describing the geopolitical environment as an “enormous challenge.”

By contrast, Ryanair has demonstrated how fuel hedging can provide a significant competitive advantage. The Irish carrier has locked in 80% of its summer fuel requirements and recently reported a 40% increase in annual profit after tax to nearly €2.3 billion.

That disparity may foreshadow a broader restructuring across the industry. Historically, prolonged periods of elevated oil prices have accelerated consolidation in aviation, with financially weaker airlines struggling to survive while larger, better-capitalized competitors gain market share.

Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary has openly warned that sustained oil prices near $150 per barrel could trigger airline failures across Europe.

If such a scenario unfolds, it could reshape competitive dynamics across key markets.

Beyond airline earnings, the fuel shock also comes with wider economic implications. Aviation serves as a critical enabler of tourism, international trade, and business travel. Higher fares can reduce mobility, dampen tourism spending, and increase transportation costs for global commerce.

The industry had entered 2026 expecting another year of strong expansion driven by pent-up travel demand and recovering international routes. Instead, airlines now find themselves confronting a new reality where geopolitical tensions, energy market volatility, and inflationary pressures are once again dictating business performance.

The outlook suggests a growing divide between carriers with strong balance sheets, extensive fuel hedging programs, and pricing power, and those operating with thinner margins and limited financial flexibility. The broader lesson for the aviation industry is that while passenger demand has largely recovered from the pandemic era, profitability remains vulnerable to events far beyond the control of airlines.