The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, 3 February 2026, made strong observations against Meta Platforms and WhatsApp LLC over their data-sharing practices, stating that it would not permit the exploitation of the personal data of Indian users.
The court was hearing appeals filed by Meta Platforms and WhatsApp challenging a judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had upheld a ₹213.14 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) over WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy.
The CCI had also filed a cross-appeal challenging the NCLAT order to the extent that it permitted Meta and WhatsApp to share user data for advertising purposes after holding that there was no abuse of dominance in that respect.
A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi heard the matters. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Meta Platforms, while Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal represented WhatsApp. Both informed the court that the penalty amount had already been deposited.
While agreeing to admit the appeals, CJI Surya Kant raised serious concerns regarding WhatsApp’s privacy policy and data-sharing practices. The Chief Justice even began dictating an order restraining the platforms from sharing user data. Rohatgi and Sibal intervened to submit that the NCLAT had, in fact, ruled in their favour on the issue of data sharing. This claim was contested by counsel appearing for the CCI.
Questioning the claim that WhatsApp offered users a genuine choice, the CJI observed that the platform operated as a monopoly.
“What is the choice? You have complete monopoly in the market, and you are saying I am giving a choice. It is either you walk out of WhatsApp policy, or we will share the data.”
The Chief Justice warned that interim protection would be granted only if Meta and WhatsApp gave a binding assurance.
“We may hear the appeal on merits. In the meantime, we will not allow you to share even a single piece of information. If you can give an affidavit of your management with an undertaking, we will hear, or else we will dismiss. You were bought by Facebook, tomorrow Facebook will be bought by someone else and you will transfer the data. You cannot play with the right of privacy of this country, let a clear message go on your WhatsApp. You are making a mockery of the constitutionalism of this country,” CJI Surya Kant said.
When Sibal argued that data sharing was done with consumer consent and that users had an “opt-out” option, the CJI responded sharply. “What do you mean by opt-out? You opt-out of the country, withdraw your facilities from here. Because you are creating a monopoly in the market, there is no choice for the consumer.”
When the submission was reiterated, the CJI questioned the practical effectiveness of such consent.
“A poor woman selling fruits on the streets, will she understand the terms of your policy? Can you imagine the language you use, very cleverly drafted, even some of us will not be able to understand. The policy must be formulated from the perspective of the common customer. Will your domestic help understand this? You might have taken the data of millions of persons. This is a decent way of committing theft of private information. We will not allow you to use it,” he said.
The Chief Justice further noted that there were “silent customers” who were “unorganised” and “addicted to the system” and unaware of the implications of such privacy policies.
“How will a person in a remote village in Tamil Nadu or Bihar understand this?” he asked, asserting, “We will not allow the rights of any citizen of this country to be damaged.”
The Bench made it clear that unless Meta and WhatsApp gave an undertaking that personal data of users would not be used, the court would not proceed to hear the matter.
At this stage, Rohatgi submitted that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was already examining WhatsApp’s privacy policy, and that in those proceedings WhatsApp had given an undertaking that no user would be barred from the platform for refusing to accept the 2021 policy. He added that the Constitution Bench had allowed WhatsApp to continue operations in line with practices followed in other jurisdictions. Rohatgi also pointed out that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 had granted time until May 2027 for compliance.
Justice Bagchi, however, observed that the Act had not yet come into force.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta intervened to submit that “our personal data is not only sold, but also commercially exploited.” Justice Bagchi said the court intended to examine how personal data was being “rented out” and monetised.
“Every silo of data, with regard to an individual, irrespective of privacy, has a value. The DPDP Act only addresses privacy. We would like to examine what is the rent sharing of data… we are concerned about how our behavioural tendencies and trends are utilised and monetised, and thereby your parent company can leverage it for the purpose of dominance and advantage in online advertising. You will target me on that advertising. We would also like to examine the data value of the footprints of the user being shared with the Meta Platform, and Meta Platform thereby having a targeted advertising advantage,” Justice Bagchi said.
CJI Surya Kant shared a personal illustration, stating: “If a message is sent to a doctor on WhatsApp that you are feeling under the weather, and the doctor sends some medicine prescriptions, immediately what kind of messages start coming to me?”
“Within 5–10 minutes, you start getting message in your email and YouTube, that you go for this medicine, that medicine,” he added.
Rohatgi and Sibal strongly denied any such linkage, reiterating that WhatsApp messages were end-to-end encrypted and that “WhatsApp cannot see the messages sent between two users.”
Justice Bagchi responded that unlike EU regulations, the DPDP Act did not address the economic value of data. “Mr. Solicitor, you have to examine, when you examine the DPDP Act, the difference between the DPDP Act and the EU Regulation is, EU considers not only privacy but also value. If I have an empty space and you are using that space for R&D, won’t you give me rent? There is no rent sharing in the DPDP Act in respect of personal data which may not be private. I may have personal data of various shades of privacy. Privacy is lost as soon as I share data online. If privacy is lost on data, they say there is no value on the data. Is that an acceptable jurisprudential idea?” Justice Bagchi asked.
The Solicitor General said the issue would be placed before the appropriate authority. Justice Bagchi remarked that “all over the world, judiciaries will have to go into an intensive and innovative oversight into these aspects.”
Senior Advocate Samar Bansal, appearing for the CCI, submitted that the regulator had already examined these issues while imposing the penalty. “Their entire revenue comes from advertising. We are the products. It is free because of that,” he said.
CJI Surya Kant observed that while earning “legitimate income” was not objectionable, “the commercial interests of the companies cannot be at the cost of the rights of Indians.”
In response to the court’s concerns, Rohatgi stated that Meta would file a detailed affidavit explaining its activities and requested the court to decide the matter thereafter. Accepting the request, the Bench adjourned the case to next Monday and permitted Meta and WhatsApp to file affidavits. On the suggestion of Bansal, the court also impleaded the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology as a party to the proceedings.
Background
The dispute originates from a November 2024 order of the CCI examining WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy update. The regulator held that WhatsApp, which enjoys a dominant position in India’s OTT messaging market, imposed a “take-it-or-leave-it” framework on users, effectively denying them any meaningful opt-out.
According to the CCI, WhatsApp made continued access to its messaging service conditional upon acceptance of expanded data sharing with other Meta group entities, amounting to abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002. The CCI imposed a penalty of ₹213.14 crore and issued remedial directions including prohibiting forced data sharing, mandating opt-in and opt-out mechanisms, and requiring detailed disclosures.
Meta Platforms and WhatsApp challenged the order before the NCLAT in January 2025. In November 2025, the NCLAT set aside the five-year restriction on advertising-related data sharing and overturned the CCI’s finding that WhatsApp had unlawfully leveraged its dominance into Meta’s advertising ecosystem. However, it upheld the ₹213.14 crore penalty imposed by the CCI.
The matter is now pending final adjudication before the Supreme Court.
Source: LiveLaw
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
