Former WhatsApp security manager sues company for privacy violations, professional retaliation

Meta is being sued by a former security manager, who claims the company ignored repeated warnings that its messaging platform WhatsApp was riddled with security vulnerabilities and privacy violations, and retaliated against him for raising these concerns, ultimately firing him.

Attaullah Baig worked at Meta and WhatsApp from 2021 until this past April. Baig, who has held cybersecurity positions at PayPal, Capital One and Whole Foods Market, claims that he was issued a verbal warning Nov. 22, 2024, and was fired by Meta on April 11, 2025, with the company citing poor performance as the reason.

But in the lawsuit, he alleges the real reason he was fired was that soon after joining Meta in September 2021, he “discovered systemic cybersecurity failures that posed serious risks to user data and violated Meta’s legal obligations” to the federal government under a 2020 Federal Trade Commission privacy order and federal securities laws.

“Through a ‘Red Team Exercise’ conducted with Meta’s Central Security team, Mr. Baig discovered that approximately 1,500 WhatsApp engineers had unrestricted access to user data, including sensitive personal information covered by the FTC Privacy Order, and could move or steal such data without detection or audit trail,” the complaint stated.

The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and names Meta, CEO Mark Zuckerberg and four other company executives as defendants.

According to Baig, he attempted to notify Meta executives on five separate occasions over the next year, raising concerns with his supervisors and highlighting information gaps — like what user data the company was collecting, where and how it was stored, and who had access — that made it impossible to comply with the consent order and federal privacy regulations.

He also created a “comprehensive product requirements document” for Meta’s privacy team that would have included a data classification and handling system to better comply with the 2020 order.

Instead, he claimed his supervisor “consistently ignored these concerns and directed Mr. Baig to focus on less critical application security tasks.”

“Mr. Baig understood that Meta’s culture is like that of a cult where one cannot question any of the past work especially when it was approved by someone at a higher level than the individual who is raising the concern,” the complaint alleged.

In August and September 2022, Baig again convened a group of Meta and WhatsApp executives to lay out his concerns, including the lack of security resources and the potential for Meta and WhatsApp to face legal consequences. He noted that WhatsApp had just 10 engineers focused on security, while comparably sized companies usually had teams approaching or exceeding 200 people.

He also outlined — at his supervisor’s request — a number of core digital vulnerabilities the company was facing.

Among the allegations: WhatsApp did not have an inventory of what user data it collected, potentially violating California state law, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the 2020 privacy order with the federal government. The company could not conclusively determine where it was storing user data and gave thousands of Meta engineers “unfettered access” without any business justifications.

The company also had no security operations center and apparently didn’t have any method of logging or tracking when those engineers sought to access user data, the lawsuit alleged.

Baig also claimed that approximately 100,000 WhatsApp users were suffering account takeovers daily, and the company had no process to prevent or deter such compromises.

During this period, Baig claims he was subject to “ongoing retaliation” from his supervisors for blowing the whistle.

Three days after initially disclosing his concerns, Baig’s direct supervisor told him he was “not performing well” and his work had quality issues. It was the first time he had received negative feedback; that same supervisor had, just three months earlier, praised Baig for his “extreme focus and clarity on project scope, timeline, etc.” In September 2022, the supervisor changed Baig’s employment performance rating to “Needs Support.” Subsequent performance ratings specifically cited Baig’s cybersecurity complaints as a basis for downgrading his score.

Additionally, after reviewing the security report that was explicitly requested of him by executives, his supervisor Suren Verma allegedly told him on a video call that the report was “the worst doc I have seen in my life” and issued a warning that Meta executives “would fire him for writing a document like this.” Verma also reportedly threatened to withhold Baig’s executive compensation package and discretionary equity.

WhatsApp denies retaliation

Meta and WhatsApp have denied Baig’s allegations that he was fired for bringing up security and privacy deficiencies.

“Sadly this is a familiar playbook in which a former employee is dismissed for poor performance and then goes public with distorted claims that misrepresent the ongoing hard work of our team,” said Carl Woog, vice president of policy at WhatsApp. “Security is an adversarial space and we pride ourselves in building on our strong record of protecting people’s privacy.” 

Zade Alsawah, a policy communications manager at WhatsApp, told CyberScoop that Baig was never “head of security” at WhatsApp, and that his formal title was software engineering manager.

“I know he’s been calling himself and framing himself as head of security, but there were seasoned security professionals layered ahead of him,” Alsawah said. “I think he’s been creating himself as this central figure when there are multiple engineers structured ahead of him.”

Further, he said that a Department of Labor and OSHA investigation ultimately cleared WhatsApp of any wrongdoing in Baig’s firing. The company shared copies of two letters from the agencies. One dated April 14, 2025, had the subject line “RE: Meta et al/Baig – notification of dismissal with appeal rights” and stated that Baig’s complaint had been dismissed.

A second letter from OSHA, dated Feb. 13, 2025, provides further reasoning for the dismissal.

“As a result of the investigation, the burden of establishing that Complainant was retaliated against in violation of [federal law] cannot be sustained,” the letter states. “Complainant’s allegations did not make a prima facie showing. Complainant’s asserted protected activity likely does not qualify as objectively reasonable under” federal law.

Even if the activity was reasonable, the agency said, “there is no reasonable expectation of a nexus between the asserted protected activity and the adverse actions. This is largely due to intervening events related to Respondent raising repeated concerns about Complainant’s performance and/or behavior, according to documents provided by Complainant.”

Baig’s allegations closely mirror that of another security whistleblower at a major social media company. Around the same time that Baig was at Meta, the top security executive at Twitter — now X — was documenting similar problems.  

Peiter Zatko, a legendary hacker turned cybersecurity specialist brought in to improve Twitter’s security, quickly determined that the company’s data infrastructure was so decentralized that executives could not reliably answer questions about the data they collected or where it was stored.

“First, they don’t know what data they have, where it lives, or where it came from and so unsurprisingly, they can’t protect it,” Zatko told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2022. “That leads to the second problem: employees need to have too much access to too much data on too many systems.”

Like the allegations against WhatsApp, Zatko told Congress that when he first arrived at Twitter in 2020 he quickly realized the company was “more than a decade behind industry security standard.”

According to Baig’s lawsuit, in one meeting WhatsApp’s global head of public policy, Jonathan Lee, remarked that the vulnerabilities highlighted by Baig were serious enough that it might lead to WhatsApp facing similar consequences as “Mudge to Twitter” — referring to Zatko.

Baig continued his warnings through March 2023, telling executive leadership that he believed the company’s lackluster efforts around cybersecurity directly violated the 2020 FTC consent order.

After dealing with what he called “escalating retaliation” from his supervisors, Baig wrote to Zuckerberg and Meta general counsel Jennifer Newstead on Jan. 2, 2024, warning that the company’s central security team had falsified security reports to “cover up” their lack of security. Later that month, Baig told his supervisor he was documenting Meta’s “false commitment” to complying with Ireland’s data protection laws, citing specific examples where user data was readily accessible to tens of thousands of employees.

Such warnings continued throughout 2024, with Baig reiterating past concerns and bringing up new ones about the company’s compliance with privacy laws.

In November 2024, Baig filed a TCR (Tip, Complaint or Referral) form with the Securities and Exchange Commission outlining his concerns and lack of remediation by Meta, and filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for “systematic retaliation” by the company.

Baig was told by Meta in February 2025 that he would be included in upcoming performance-based layoffs, with the company citing “poor performance” and inability to collaborate as the primary reasons.

Update, Sept. 9, 2025: This story was updated with Meta/WhatsApp’s response.