'WhatsApp Gold' is real scam, but 'Martinelli' video allegedly spreading hoax doesn't exist ⁠25%

By Megan Loe⁠0%

6/12/2026, 11:00:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Unattributed Quote, and Red Herring, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 29.8% saturation with 204 hits. Analysis detected 1,113 faulty-reasoning hits from 684 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠25% (16,473 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.30% of the article peer group.

In June 2026, social media users shared warnings about a supposed "gold" update to the popular messaging app WhatsApp. 
Their posts described the alleged "WhatsApp Gold" update as a scam that would install malicious software on people's phones and compromise their personal information. 
The posts urged people not to engage with any messages about the app update. 
People online also connected the "WhatsApp Gold" scam to another purported hoax about a video called "Martinelli" — a video that, if opened on WhatsApp, would supposedly hack into people's phones. 
Image courtesy of Dilara Irem Sancar/Anadolu, accessed via Getty Images 
Multiple Snopes readers searched our website to verify whether "WhatsApp Gold" was a legitimate app update or scam. 
The messages urging caution were legitimate. 
As Snopes previously reported, WhatsApp does not offer a premium version of the app called "WhatsApp Gold," and messages promoting the alleged update are likely aiming to steal personal information or infect devices with malware. 
Versions of this hoax have been tricking people for nearly a decade. 
In a statement emailed to Snopes when we last fact-checked this claim in October 2025, WhatsApp confirmed that "WhatsApp Gold" is a hoax and not an official version of the app: 
No, WhatsApp does not offer things like WA Gold or WA Plus. 
This is a hoax that has again resurfaced. 
We strongly encourage people to only use the official WhatsApp app. 
We don't support unofficial clients — which could use many different names — because they carry real security or privacy risks to the people they trick into downloading them. 
Separately, we debunked the existence of the so-called "Martinelli" video. 
Despite social media claims, there was no evidence of such a video, much less one that can hack people's phones. 
The hoax began circulating in 2017 and is incorrectly linked to legitimate warnings about "WhatsApp Gold" scams. 
Similar hoaxes linking videos called "Dance of the Pope" and "Dance of the Hillary" to viruses or cyberattacks have also circulated online for years. 
Scam is nearly a decade old 
Scammers first tricked WhatsApp users into downloading the malicious unofficial "WhatsApp Gold" update in 2016, according to multiple news outlets. 
Instead of getting an exclusive version of the app, users dealt with malware that infected their devices, the British newspaper The Independent reported in May 2016. 
Since then, multiple cybersecurity experts have issued warnings about the "WhatsApp Gold" scam. 
Cybersecurity companies Norton and Avira, along with the United Kingdom's National Fraud & Cyber Crime Reporting Center, explained on their websites that scam messages promoting the "WhatsApp Gold" hoax entice users with false promises of new features, such as unlimited media sharing, special filters, improved video-call quality, new emojis and increased security. 
The scam messages typically urge people to sign up for the fraudulent app through a download link that takes them to a malicious website, where cybercriminals attempt to harvest personal information or install malware onto the victims' devices. 
Viruses, spyware and ransomware are common types of malware, according to the Federal Trade Commission. 
Cybercriminals can use malware to steal information like bank account numbers, Social Security numbers and usernames and passwords. 
Tips to protect yourself 
So how can you protect yourself from the "WhatsApp Gold" scam? 
Cybersecurity experts offer several tips. 
On its website, Norton urged people to remember that WhatsApp only offers one official version of its platform, available for free through legitimate app stores, such as Apple's App Store or the Google Play Store. 
"Any message promoting premium variants is automatically fraudulent," Norton said. 
Also, Avira advised on its website against clicking unexpected or suspicious links. 
If a suspected scammer contacts you on WhatsApp, do not interact with them and block the number immediately, the company added. 
Norton provided additional information on its website about other common WhatsApp scams, including fraudulent job offers, verification code schemes and more. 
For further reading, Snopes previously debunked another rumor about WhatsApp, one that falsely claimed a new AI feature allows the company default access to all chats unless users enable an "advanced privacy" option. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.9%Megan Loe: 3.3%Snopes: 2.4%Confirmation Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.6%Snopes: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Megan Loe: 6.5%Snopes: 3.4%Availability Heuristic17.3%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.6%Snopes: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.5%Megan Loe: 0.5%Snopes: 0.2%Hindsight Bias2.5%This article: 1.5%Megan Loe: 0.4%Snopes: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias1.5%This article: 3.5%Megan Loe: 1.1%Snopes: 2.4%Framing Effect3.5%This article: 4.2%Megan Loe: 2.3%Snopes: 0.2%Loss Aversion4.2%This article: 5.1%Megan Loe: 0.6%Snopes: 0.5%Status Quo Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Megan Loe: 5.4%Snopes: 5.1%Negativity Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.5%Snopes: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%Megan Loe: 1.5%Snopes: 1.5%Recency Bias7.7%This article: 4.8%Megan Loe: 0.8%Snopes: 0.5%Primacy Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 1.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.8%Megan Loe: 13.8%Snopes: 6.0%Appeal to Authority29.8%This article: 1.5%Megan Loe: 0.4%Snopes: 0.9%False Dilemma1.5%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.3%Megan Loe: 2.2%Snopes: 3.5%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 12.4%Megan Loe: 2.2%Snopes: 0.7%Red Herring12.4%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.6%Snopes: 1.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.9%Megan Loe: 1.4%Snopes: 1.6%Burden of Proof2.9%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.6%Megan Loe: 0.7%Snopes: 1.8%Anecdotal5.6%This article: 4.2%Megan Loe: 1.1%Snopes: 0.1%No True Scotsman4.2%This article: 3.4%Megan Loe: 0.4%Snopes: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.9%Megan Loe: 3.6%Snopes: 3.3%Unattributed Quote15.9%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.9%Megan Loe: 0.6%Snopes: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice1.9%This article: 11.0%Megan Loe: 6.7%Snopes: 0.7%Indoctrination11.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Megan Loe: 0.0%Snopes: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Megan Loe: 0.2%Snopes: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.6%

684 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers14%attributed speech589writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWhatsApp • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageThe Independent • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageNorton • 35 words • 0.0% coverageNorton • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAvira • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Norton

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words47% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-18.5 ptsWriter: 18.5%Norton: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%Norton: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Norton: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%Norton: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.