WhatsApp Gets Partial Relief On Its Data Privacy Policy In India – Appellate Tribunal Holds That Data Sharing with Meta Not an Abuse of Dominance

In this blog post, author M.M. Sharma shares his insight and overview of the NCLAT’s November 2025 ruling largely upholding the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) findings against WhatsApp and Meta over the 2021 Privacy Policy update. The case centered on WhatsApp’s mandatory “take-it-or-leave-it” policy, which required users to accept expanded data sharing with Meta without any opt-out, failing which functionality would be restricted. The CCI had held this to be an abuse of dominance and imposed a penalty of INR 213.14 crore along with behavioural remedies.

The dispute marked a departure from earlier proceedings concerning WhatsApp’s 2016 policy, which had included an opt-out mechanism and was not found to warrant investigation. In contrast, the 2021 update removed user choice and enabled extensive sharing of transactional and behavioural data with Meta entities, raising concerns in a market characterized by strong network effects and high switching costs. Acting suo motu, the CCI concluded that WhatsApp was dominant in the Indian OTT messaging market and that the policy imposed unfair and coercive conditions while facilitating competitive advantages in adjacent markets.

On appeal, the NCLAT affirmed the CCI’s market definition and dominance findings, endorsing the view that OTT messaging apps constitute a distinct India-specific market. It upheld findings of exploitative abuse and denial of market access, recognizing data as a critical non-price parameter of competition in digital markets. However, the Tribunal set aside the separate finding of “leveraging” against Meta, holding that the statutory requirements for extending dominance across markets were not fully satisfied, and quashed the five-year prohibition on data sharing for advertising purposes.

The ruling reinforces the CCI’s jurisdiction to examine data practices through a competition lens, distinct from constitutional privacy challenges, and underscores the role of user choice and transparency in digital markets. While affirming the monetary penalty and most behavioural remedies, the NCLAT adopted a calibrated approach to group liability and proportionality. The matter has since been appealed to the Supreme Court, leaving the final outcome open.

CONTINUE READING…