New Delhi’s Supreme Court is set for a pivotal hearing on Monday, where Meta Platforms and WhatsApp will contest a hefty 213.14 crore rupee penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The fine stems from concerns over WhatsApp’s controversial privacy policy updates that allegedly enable excessive data sharing with its parent company.
A bench led by Chief Justice Justice Suryakant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, will deliberate the petitions. This comes after the court sharply rebuked the tech giants on February 3, warning they cannot toy with citizens’ privacy rights under the guise of data sharing. The justices highlighted how these platforms are fostering monopolistic practices and exploiting user data.
The controversy ignited with WhatsApp’s policy changes, prompting CCI to penalize the firm for anti-competitive behavior. The court expressed particular worry for ‘silent customers’—vulnerable, digitally dependent users often unaware of data-sharing implications. ‘Citizens’ rights will not be compromised at any cost,’ the bench asserted firmly.
Previously, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on November 4 partially overturned CCI’s order, lifting a five-year ban on WhatsApp sharing user data with Meta for advertising. However, the monetary penalty remained intact. NCLAT clarified that its ruling on privacy and consent applies broadly to data collection and sharing for all purposes, including ads.
The Supreme Court had earlier indicated an interim order on February 9 and directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to join as a party. Now, alongside Meta and WhatsApp’s appeals, the court will also address CCI’s cross-appeal challenging NCLAT’s relaxation on ad-related data sharing.
This case underscores India’s intensifying scrutiny of Big Tech’s data practices, balancing innovation with user protection in a rapidly digitizing economy. Stakeholders await whether the apex court will uphold, modify, or overturn the penalty, potentially setting precedents for privacy regulations.