Telegram’s Pavel Durov Says French Case Is Stalled, Blasts Government Over “Absurd” Probe
Telegram founder Pavel Durov says the French criminal investigation against him has produced no evidence a year after his August 2024 arrest. He argues the case wrongly holds a platform executive liable for independent user behavior and harms France’s reputation for civil liberties.
- Durov: Investigators still “struggling” to find wrongdoing by him or Telegram
- Calls his 2024 arrest “unprecedented” and the legal theory “absurd”
- Says he must return to France every 14 days, with no appeal date set
- French officials accuse Telegram of hosting harmful content; Macron denies political motive
- Crypto, privacy, and human-rights groups decry pressure to censor the platform
- Durov vows no encryption backdoors; Telegram complies with binding legal requests
Pavel Durov provided a fresh update on his legal situation in France, claiming the year-long criminal probe remains without substantive evidence against him or Telegram. In a weekend post, he described his August 2024 arrest as “unprecedented,” arguing that treating a platform founder as responsible for users’ independent actions is both legally and logically unsound. Durov said Telegram’s moderation practices align with industry norms and that the company responds to every legally binding request from French authorities.
Despite the lack of visible progress, Durov said he is still required to return to France every two weeks and has no appeal date. He warned that the government’s handling of the case has already caused lasting damage to France’s standing as a free and open society.
The arrest drew sharp criticism from the crypto community, free-speech advocates, and human-rights organizations, which accused French authorities of attempting to strong-arm Telegram into broader censorship. French law enforcement has argued the platform is used to disseminate harmful content, while President Emmanuel Macron rejected claims of political motivation, saying the rule of law requires applying protections and responsibilities both online and offline. Those assurances sparked backlash from industry figures who questioned holding platform operators to a standard of total control.
Durov reiterated Telegram’s long-standing privacy stance: the company will not provide encryption keys or build backdoors. He added that while Telegram complies with binding legal process, it would exit a jurisdiction rather than compromise user privacy.
Final Thought:
One year on, Durov’s case has become a high-profile test of how far governments can push platform liability without eroding civil-liberty norms—and whether privacy-first apps can preserve their principles under sustained legal pressure.
