Together for Justice: Supreme Court Ruling Does Not Erase Saudi Arabia’s Twitter Spying Scandal

Together for Justice said that the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn part of the judgment against a former Twitter employee does not change the seriousness of the case, which exposed how a Saudi official obtained confidential information about Saudi dissidents through the platform in exchange for gifts and large financial payments.

The Supreme Court overturned one part of the judgment against Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee, related to an accusation that he obstructed an FBI investigation. The Court found that he had been tried in the wrong state on that specific charge. However, the ruling does not erase the core of the case or the facts that revealed the use of money and influence to access the private data of Saudi dissidents on Twitter.

The case dates back to Abouammo’s time at Twitter between 2013 and 2015, when he worked as a media partnerships manager for the Middle East and North Africa region. According to court records, he received a luxury watch worth around $42,000, as well as two wire transfers of $100,000 each, in return for providing a Saudi official with confidential information about accounts belonging to Saudi dissidents who were using the platform to criticise the authorities.

Together for Justice stressed that these facts represent a serious violation of users’ right to privacy and freedom of expression, particularly because the information targeted individuals from a country known for imprisoning activists, journalists, human rights defenders and peaceful critics over their opinions and online activity.

The organisation said the case is not merely about the conduct of a former employee at a technology company. It exposes a wider pattern in which the Saudi authorities pursue critics outside the country and use money, gifts and personal connections to obtain information that could be used for intimidation, threats or retaliation.

Together for Justice added that the targeting of dissidents through social media platforms is an extension of domestic repression in Saudi Arabia. The authorities do not only imprison activists inside the Kingdom; they also seek to monitor critical voices abroad and reach their data through networks of influence inside international institutions and companies.

The organisation emphasised that the gifts and payments mentioned in the case cannot be separated from the wider use of Saudi money to buy influence and whitewash violations. In this case, money was not only used to polish the image of the Saudi authorities, but to access information about people exercising their basic right to express their views.

Together for Justice warned that the Supreme Court’s decision must not be used to downplay the seriousness of the case or present it as a full acquittal. The decision only overturned one part of the judgment because of where that charge was tried. The central facts remain: a Saudi official, confidential information about dissidents, expensive gifts and large financial transfers.

The organisation called on US authorities to continue pursuing all legal avenues related to the case and to investigate the role of Saudi officials involved, rather than limiting accountability to employees or intermediaries. Real accountability must include those who requested the information, benefited from it or participated in targeting dissidents.

Together for Justice also called on major technology companies, especially X/Twitter, to review their internal systems for protecting user data, particularly the data of activists, dissidents and journalists who are at risk of being targeted by repressive governments. It urged the platform to adopt stricter safeguards to prevent similar breaches from happening again.

Together for Justice concluded that the Twitter-Saudi Arabia case reveals a dangerous form of cross-border repression, in which the Saudi authorities use money and influence to reach critics even outside the country. The organisation stressed that digital privacy is now an essential part of human rights protection, and that any failure to confront such violations gives repressive governments more space to pursue and silence their opponents.