I’m not pretending anything. You’re criticizing their marketing, I’m pointing out the technical reality behind the claims. Those are two different discussions.
Proton’s core claim has always been encrypted email content, not immunity from legal orders. No company operating in a country can ignore the law.
If your argument is that their marketing created unrealistic expectations, that’s a fair criticism. But calling it a “lie” and ignoring how the technology actually works doesn’t make the argument stronger.
You’re free to dislike Proton, but most of what you’re describing isn’t unique to them — it’s how any service operating under a legal jurisdiction works. If a company stores payment or account data, a court can compel it. That’s true for Proton, Tuta, Gmail, or anyone else.
Expecting a hosted email provider to somehow eliminate all legal exposure for users just isn’t realistic. If someone needs real anonymity, the solution was never a normal email service in the first place.
Criticizing marketing or leadership is fair. But blaming Proton for the basic limits of hosted services sounds more like anger at the system than a technical critique of the product.