The Supreme Courtroom on Tuesday made robust essential remarks in opposition to Meta Platforms and WhatsApp LLC relating to their privateness coverage and stated that the Courtroom won’t permit them to use the private information of Indians.
The Courtroom was listening to the appeals filed by Meta Platforms and WhatsApp LLC difficult the judgment of the Nationwide Firm Legislation Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had upheld the ₹213.14 crore penalty imposed by the Competitors Fee of India (CCI) over WhatsApp’s 2021 privateness coverage.
There was additionally a cross-appeal filed by the Competitors Fee of India difficult the NCLAT’s order to the extent it allowed Meta and WhatsApp to share customers’ information for promoting functions after discovering that there was no abuse of dominance by them.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi heard the issues.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, showing for Meta and WhatsApp, respectively, knowledgeable that the penalty quantity has been deposited.
Theft of personal data : SC slams WhatsApp & Meta
CJI Surya Kant, whereas agreeing to confess the appeals, nonetheless, raised issues in regards to the privateness coverage of the platform. CJI infact even began dictating an order restraining the platforms from sharing the information. Rohatgi and Sibal interjected to submit that the NCLAT has truly determined of their favour on this level. The CCI’s counsel contested this declare.
The CJI questioned the declare that WhatsApp has given a option to the shopper, because the platform is a monopoly. “What’s the alternative? You will have full monopoly out there and you’re saying I’m giving a alternative. It’s both you stroll out of WhatsApp coverage or we’ll share the information.”
“We might hear the enchantment on deserves. Within the meantime, we won’t let you share even a single piece of data. Should you may give an affidavit of your administration with an enterprise, we’ll hear, or else we’ll dismiss. You had been purchased by Fb, tomorrow Fb will likely be purchased by another person and you’ll switch the information. You can’t play with the fitting of privateness of this nation, let a transparent message go in your WhatsApp. You’re making a mockery of the constitutionalism of this nation,” CJI Surya Kant stated.
When Sibal stated that it’s performed with the consent of the patron and there may be an “opt-out” choice, CJI stated, “What do you imply by opt-out? You choose-out of the nation, withdraw your amenities from right here. Since you are making a monopoly out there, there isn’t a alternative for the patron.”
When Sibal reiterated that there’s an choice to choose out of the coverage, CJI questioned the efficacy of the coverage. “A poor girl promoting fruits on the streets, will she perceive the phrases of your coverage? Are you able to think about the language you employ, very cleverly drafted, even a few of us won’t be able to grasp. The coverage should be formulated from the angle of the frequent buyer. Will your home assist perceive this? You might need taken the information of tens of millions of individuals. It is a first rate method of committing theft of personal data. We won’t let you use it,” CJI Kant stated.
CJI stated that there are “silent prospects” who’re “unorganised” and are “hooked on the system” who will not be conscious of the privateness insurance policies. He requested how an individual in a distant village in Tamil Nadu or Bihar will perceive the sophisticated language of the coverage. “We won’t permit the rights of any citizen of this nation to be broken,” CJI asserted.
CJI stated that until WhatsApp and Meta give an enterprise that the private information of customers won’t be used, the Courtroom won’t hear the matter. Rohatgi at this juncture submitted {that a} Structure Bench is analyzing WhatsApp’s privateness coverage, and in that matter, an enterprise was provided that no person will likely be barred from WhatsApp for not accepting the 2021 privateness coverage. Rohatgi stated that the Structure Bench has allowed WhatsApp to proceed in the identical vogue because it was functioning in different jurisdictions.
Rohatgi additionally submitted that the Digital Private Knowledge Safety Act 2023 has given time until Might 2027. Justice Bagchi nonetheless identified that the Act is but to be in pressure.
Will study how private information is exploited commercially : Bench
Solicitor Basic of India Tushar Mehta interjected to submit that “our private information shouldn’t be solely offered, but in addition commercially exploited.”
Justice Bagchi stated that the Courtroom wish to study how the information is “rented out” by WhatsApp and the way individuals are focused with advertisements after analysing their behavioural tendencies.
“Each silo of information, with regard to a person, no matter privateness, has a price. The DPDP Act solely addresses privateness. We wish to study what’s the lease sharing of information…we’re involved about how our behavioural tendencies and tendencies are utilised and monetised, and thereby your guardian firm can leverage it for the aim of dominance and benefit in internet marketing. You’ll goal me on that promoting. We might additionally like to look at the information worth of the footprints of the person being shared with the Meta Platform, and Meta Platform thereby having a focused promoting benefit,” Justice Bagchi stated.
CJI Kant stated that he has private expertise. “If a message is distributed to a health care provider on WhatsApp that you’re feeling underneath the climate, and the physician sends some medication prescriptions, instantly what sort of messages begin coming to me?” CJI stated. “Inside 5-10 minutes, you begin getting message in your e-mail and YouTube, that you simply go for this medication that medication,” CJI added.
Rohatgi and Sibal then vehemently submitted that WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted and that even “WhatsApp can not see the messages despatched between two customers.”
Justice Bagchi stated that the DPDP Act doesn’t handle the difficulty of “worth” on information sharing, not like the EU Laws. Solicitor Basic stated that in EC, there’s a worth placed on information shared, and it’s taxable with a notional worth. “Mr.Solicitor, it’s a must to study, while you study the DPDP Act, the distinction between the DPDP Act and the EU Regulation is, EU considers not solely privateness but in addition worth. If I’ve an empty area and you’re utilizing that area for R&D, will not you give lease. There isn’t a lease sharing within the DPDP Act in respect of non-public information which might not be personal. I’ll have private information of assorted shades of privateness. Privateness is misplaced as quickly as I share information on-line. If privateness is misplaced on information, they are saying there isn’t a worth on the information. Is that a suitable jurisprudential concept?” Justice Bagchi requested. SG stated that he’ll put the thought to the related authority.
“All around the world, judiciaries should go into an intensive and revolutionary oversight into these facets,” Justice Bagchi stated.
Senior Advocate Samar Bansal, showing for the CCI, submitted that the CCI has examined this side and the penalty was accordingly imposed. “Their complete income comes from promoting. We’re the merchandise. It’s free due to that,” Bansal submitted.
CJI stated that there’s nothing incorrect with making “reliable revenue” however the “business pursuits of the businesses can’t be at the price of the rights of Indians.”
Confronted with the volley of queries from the Courtroom, Rohatgi stated that Meta will file an affidavit explaining their actions and stated that the Courtroom might take a name after studying that.
Accepting this proposal, the Courtroom adjourned the matter until subsequent Monday, permitting Meta and WhatsApp to file affidavits. Additionally, primarily based on suggestion by Bansal, the Courtroom additionally impleaded the Ministry of Electronics and Data Expertise as a celebration to the case.
Background
The dispute arises from the Competitors Fee of India (CCI)’s November 2024 order analyzing WhatsApp’s 2021 privateness coverage replace. The regulator held that WhatsApp, which enjoys a dominant place in India’s OTT messaging market, imposed a “take-it-or-leave-it” framework on customers, denying them any significant opt-out.
In accordance with the CCI, WhatsApp made continued entry to its messaging service conditional on customers accepting expanded information sharing with different Meta Platforms group entities. This, the regulator discovered, amounted to an abuse of dominant place underneath the Competitors Act, 2002.
On this foundation, the CCI imposed a penalty of Rs 213.14 crore on Meta Platforms and issued a collection of remedial instructions aimed toward restoring person alternative. These included prohibiting WhatsApp from tying service entry to information sharing, mandating clear opt-in and opt-out mechanisms, and requiring detailed disclosures on the character and function of information sharing throughout Meta’s platforms.
Meta Platforms and WhatsApp challenged the CCI’s order earlier than the Nationwide Firm Legislation Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in January 2025. In November 2025, the NCLAT put aside the five-year restriction on advertising-related information sharing and overturned the CCI’s discovering that WhatsApp had unlawfully leveraged its dominance into Meta’s promoting ecosystem. Nevertheless, it nonetheless upheld the Rs 213.14 crore penalty imposed on Meta Platforms.
Case Particulars: META PLATFORMS, INC Versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.| C.A. No. 301-302/2026 & WHATSAPP LLC v CCI C.A. No. 366-367/2026
