Pfizergate fallout: Will EU officials give up Whatsapp?

Forget smoke-filled rooms and whispered bar chats—contemporary EU politics is dominated by WhatsApp.

Despite the recent headline-grabbing “Pfizergate” ruling by the EU’s General Court, which could expand public access to politicians’ text messages, the Politico magazine argues that the use of private messaging apps by officials isn’t likely to change. The court's decision rebuked the European Commission for refusing to disclose messages between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during critical Covid-19 vaccine negotiations.

These texts preceded the EU’s largest-ever vaccine purchase contract worth over 35 billion euros. While the Commission argued the messages were too mundane to be considered official documents, the court believes such texts should be treated like any written communication, making them subject to public disclosure. Yet EU insiders aren’t expecting a dramatic shift, with one official even telling the publication that reverting to traditional communication through secretaries is unthinkable. 

Another official defended WhatsApp as the fastest and simplest tool for communication. Still, according to the article, the ruling theoretically opens the door for any message—no matter how trivial—between EU officials, lobbyists, NGOs, or companies to be requested by the public under document access laws. While Brussels insiders expect business as usual, some legal experts believe the verdict may change behaviours. Vincent Couronne, a European law scholar, noted that the blurred lines between emails, texts, Slack, and WhatsApp might prompt officials to avoid written exchanges altogether in favour of oral communication to avoid scrutiny. 

The court's move brings the EU closer to transparency standards found in countries like the U.K. For instance, in the 2023 Covid inquiry, WhatsApp messages from Boris Johnson’s former adviser Dominic Cummings were used as evidence—some containing colourful yet derogative criticisms of Cabinet ministers. In contrast, Scottish former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon claimed her own messages couldn’t be reviewed because she had deleted them. As the article recalls, disappearing messages have become standard practice in some circles. A former UK government official said roughly half the Cabinet used apps with auto-delete functions. In Brussels, similar habits are reportedly common. 

A Commission official confirmed to the publication that it’s “advisable” to use the disappearing message feature after a certain period and that staff are generally told not to use apps like Signal or WhatsApp for meaningful exchanges. The Commission maintains that messages containing “substantial content” should be treated as official documents and archived accordingly. But that raises a critical issue—who decides what counts as “substantial”? Ultimately, the system relies heavily on officials self-reporting their own communications. 

Those who voluntarily archive messages or record meetings for transparency are ironically the ones most scrutinized. One official noted that merely allowing access to documents won’t help if no one classifies messages as official in the first place. Even when messages are technically accessible, the Commission frequently declines the more than 7,000 public access requests it receives each year. Common justifications include excessive administrative burden, political sensitivity, or that fulfilling the request would be too time-consuming. 

So maybe nothing will change. Or maybe officials and diplomats will just go back to talking face-to-face ― and risk being overheard by one of Brussels' hundreds of spies instead. 

By Nazrin Sadigova