The Meta and WhatsApp Privacy Policy Case

India's leading case on the intersection of competition law and data protection. The Commission examined the 2021 privacy policy update under which users of the messaging service were required to accept expanded sharing of their data with other group companies in order to continue using the service, with no option to refuse. By order of 18 November 2024 it found an abuse of dominance, imposed a penalty of about two hundred and thirteen crore fourteen lakh rupees and issued behavioural directions including a bar on sharing data for advertising purposes for five years. On 4 November 2025 the appellate tribunal substantially upheld the findings and the penalty while setting aside the five-year advertising bar.

1. The Market and Dominance

The Commission defined the relevant market as the market for over the top messaging applications through smartphones in India, and found the messaging service dominant in it. The factors were the very large user base, the strength of direct network effects in a communication service, the switching costs arising from the loss of contacts and message history, the limited extent to which users multi-home for their principal messaging needs, and the absence of any alternative of comparable reach. A related market for online display advertising in India was identified, in which the group was also found to hold a strong position, and it is the link between the two that supplies the theory of harm.

2. The Conduct

1. The take it or leave it policy update. Users were required to accept the expanded data sharing terms in order to continue using the service. The earlier position, under which users could decline sharing with other group companies, was withdrawn. The Commission examined this as the imposition of unfair conditions under Section 4(2)(a)(i).
2. The absence of any choice. Because the service was dominant and switching costly, users had no practical alternative to acceptance. Consent obtained in those circumstances was held not to answer the complaint of imposition, which is the same reasoning applied to standard form contracts in Belaire Owners' Association v. DLF Ltd.
3. Data sharing for advertising. Data collected on the messaging service was made available to group companies for purposes including advertising, which was examined as conduct entrenching the group's position in the display advertising market and as denial of market access to rivals in that market who could not obtain comparable data.

3. The Order and the Appeal

• The Commission, 18 November 2024. A penalty of about two hundred and thirteen crore fourteen lakh rupees; a direction that users be given the choice to opt out of data sharing with other group companies for purposes other than the provision of the messaging service; requirements of transparency in the policy as to what data is shared, with whom and for what purpose; and a prohibition for five years on sharing user data collected on the messaging service with other group companies for advertising purposes.
• The appellate tribunal, 4 November 2025. The findings of dominance and of abuse and the penalty were substantially upheld. The five-year prohibition on sharing data for advertising was set aside, the tribunal taking the view that a remedy of that character and duration went beyond what was necessary and would affect the viability of a service supplied without charge. The remaining directions, concerning user choice and transparency, were modified rather than removed.

4. Competition and Data Protection

The enterprise argued that data practices are the subject of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and of the regulator created by it, and that the Commission was trespassing on that field. The appellate tribunal treated the two frameworks as complementary rather than mutually exclusive, and the reasoning is worth stating precisely. Data protection law asks whether the processing of personal data is lawful, fair and consented to, and it protects the individual. Competition law asks whether a dominant enterprise has used its position to impose terms that users would not accept in a competitive market, and whether the resulting data advantage forecloses rivals; it protects the process of competition. The same conduct may be examined by both, and Section 62 preserves each.

5. Why the Case Matters

1. It establishes that privacy degradation may be examined under Section 4 as the imposition of unfair conditions, which is the Indian counterpart of developments in other jurisdictions.
2. It confirms that zero-price services are within the Act, dominance being assessed through users, network effects and switching costs rather than through revenue.
3. It illustrates the limits of behavioural remedies. A prohibition on data sharing for advertising is easy to state and hard to calibrate, and the appellate tribunal's reasons for setting it aside show the difficulty of designing a proportionate remedy in this field.
4. It settles, for the present, the relationship with data protection law, which is complementarity rather than exclusion.

6. Related Topics and Provisions