Critics dismiss NSO’s assertions of transparency as it seeks access to the US market

NSO Group Releases New Transparency Report Amid Scrutiny

The NSO Group, a prominent and often debated supplier of government surveillance software, has published its latest transparency report as it claims to be entering “a new phase of accountability.”

Unlike previous years, this report omits specific figures regarding how many clients NSO has declined, investigated, suspended, or cut ties with due to concerns about human rights violations linked to its products. While the document reiterates commitments to uphold human rights and enforce similar standards among its clients, it lacks tangible proof to support these assertions.

Industry observers and critics, familiar with NSO and the broader spyware sector, view this report as part of a broader campaign to persuade the U.S. government to remove NSO from the Entity List—a trade restriction list—so the company can re-enter the American market with new investors and leadership.

Following its acquisition by U.S. investors last year, NSO has undergone significant changes at the top. Former Trump administration official David Friedman became executive chairman, CEO Yaron Shohat resigned, and Omri Lavie, the last founding member involved with the company, also departed, as reported by Haaretz.

“When NSO’s products are used responsibly by the right authorities, global safety is enhanced. This remains our central mission,” Friedman stated in the report, which does not specify any countries where NSO operates.

Natalia Krapiva, senior tech-legal counsel at Access Now—a digital rights group investigating spyware misuse—told TechCrunch: “NSO is clearly working to be removed from the U.S. Entity List, and they need to demonstrate significant change since being added.” She added, “Leadership changes are one step, and this transparency report is another.” However, Krapiva cautioned, “We’ve seen similar moves from NSO and other spyware companies before—new names, new leaders, and vague transparency or ethics reports, but the abuses persist.”

Krapiva further commented, “This is just another superficial gesture, and the U.S. government should not be deceived.”

Since being placed on the Entity List by the Biden administration, NSO has lobbied to have the restrictions lifted. After Donald Trump returned to office last year, these lobbying efforts intensified, but as of May last year, the new administration had not been swayed.

In December, the Trump administration removed sanctions from three executives associated with the Intellexa spyware group, which some interpreted as a shift in the administration’s stance on spyware companies.

Transparency Report Lacks Substance

The 2025 transparency report is notably less detailed than those from previous years.

• In the 2024 report, NSO disclosed three investigations into possible misuse. The company ended its relationship with one client, imposed corrective measures on another—including human rights training and increased oversight—and did not provide details about the third case.
• NSO also claimed to have turned down over $20 million in new business during 2024 due to human rights concerns.
• The 2022-2023 report stated that six government clients were suspended or terminated, resulting in $57 million in lost revenue.
• In 2021, NSO reported disconnecting five clients since 2016 after misuse investigations, amounting to over $100 million in lost revenue, and ending relationships with five others over human rights concerns.

The latest report does not reveal the total number of NSO’s clients—a statistic previously included in every annual disclosure.

When TechCrunch requested updated figures from NSO spokesperson Gil Lanier, no response was received by the deadline.

John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at The Citizen Lab, which has investigated spyware abuses for over ten years, criticized the lack of transparency. “I expected data and specifics,” he told TechCrunch. “There’s nothing here that allows outsiders to verify NSO’s claims, which is typical for a company with a long history of making statements that later prove misleading.”