WhatsApp’s privacy policy faces legal challenge in India

WhatsApp’s privacy policy faces legal challenge in India

WhatsApp’s privacy policy faces legal challenge in India

https://www.azernews.az/region/255082.html

Publish Date: 2026-03-01 08:45:00

Source Domain: www.azernews.az

A landmark legal battle over privacy, data control and the
business model of big tech is unfolding in India, as WhatsApp’s
2021 privacy policy faces intense scrutiny from the Supreme Court
of India, AzerNEWS reports.

At stake are not just the terms of WhatsApp’s controversial
update, but broader questions about privacy rights, consumer choice
and the regulation of dominant digital platforms in one of the
world’s largest internet markets.

What the case is about

In January 2021, WhatsApp introduced a policy requiring users in
India to accept expanded data-sharing terms with its parent
company, Meta Platforms, in order to continue using the app.
Critics described it as a “take it or leave it” model that gave
users no real alternative.

India’s competition watchdog, the Competition Commission of
India (CCI), launched an investigation in March 2021, alleging
“exploitative and exclusionary conduct”. It argued that Meta was
leveraging WhatsApp’s dominant position — with an estimated 853
million users in India — to strengthen its advertising business and
disadvantage competitors.

In November 2024, the CCI fined Meta $25m for abusing its
dominant position. It also:

Ordered behavioural remedies within three months

Barred WhatsApp from sharing user data with Meta entities for
five years

Directed the company to clearly specify the purposes of data
sharing

Meta and WhatsApp challenged the order before a company law
tribunal, which upheld the fine but stayed the five-year
data-sharing ban. In January 2026, the firms approached the Supreme
Court to contest the penalty.

During recent hearings, the Supreme Court criticised the “take
it or leave it” approach, warning it would not allow companies to
“play with” Indians’ constitutional right to privacy or “make a
mockery” of the Constitution.

The court described the policy as a…

Source