Musk, Durov question WhatsApp security after class action

Elon Musk and Telegram’s Pavel Durov raised doubts about WhatsApp after a new class action alleged hidden access to messages. WhatsApp rejected the claims and cited Signal protocol encryption.
Elon Musk and Telegram founder Pavel Durov on Thursday challenged the security of Meta’s WhatsApp after a newly filed class action claimed the app enables backdoor access to user messages. WhatsApp rejected the allegation and pointed to its use of end-to-end encryption based on the Signal protocol.
Musk weighed in on X with the post, “Can’t trust WhatsApp,” in reference to the new complaint. WhatsApp’s official account on X pushed back, calling the lawsuit’s assertions “categorically false and absurd” and reiterating that only senders and recipients can read message content.
The complaint contends that while WhatsApp is marketed as end-to-end encrypted, internal Meta staff, contractors at Ireland-based Accenture, and possibly other third parties can view messages without users’ knowledge. According to the filing, a “backdoor” in the app’s code allegedly allows employees or contractors to bypass encryption and access private chats.
Durov escalated the criticism, labeling WhatsApp’s encryption “the biggest consumer fraud in history.” He alleged the platform “reads users’ messages and shares them with third parties,” and asserted that Telegram “has never done this — and never will.”
WhatsApp defended its security model, citing years of end-to-end encryption using the Signal protocol. The company maintained that this prevents anyone other than the sender and intended recipient from accessing message content and rejected any description of internal access or a hidden mechanism. No additional technical details were provided beyond public statements.
Meta’s stock rose 2.61% to close at $628.39 on Thursday and ticked up to $629.01 in after-hours trading.
A separate case filed in January 2026 also challenged Meta’s marketing of WhatsApp as fully end-to-end encrypted. Meta rejected those allegations at the time. The technical claims in the new lawsuit have not been adjudicated, and no court has ruled on the latest assertions.
The content on The Coinomist is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as financial advice. While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any content. Neither we accept liability for any errors or omissions in the information provided or for any financial losses incurred as a result of relying on this information. Actions based on this content are at your own risk. Always do your own research and consult a professional. See our Terms, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimers for more details.







