Supreme Court Delivers Stern Warning to WhatsApp and Meta Over Data Policies
The Supreme Court of India has issued a scathing critique of WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms Inc., accusing the technology giants of making a mockery of the country's constitutional principles through their data sharing policies. During a hearing on Tuesday, the apex court declared it would not permit the exploitation of citizens' private data and suggested the companies should consider leaving India if they cannot adequately address concerns regarding data privacy and sharing practices.
Court Questions Monopoly and Forced Consent
Presiding over a three-judge bench, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed strong reservations about what he termed a "complete monopoly" enjoyed by WhatsApp in the messaging market. The court challenged the notion of user consent in such an imbalanced power dynamic, comparing it to "an agreement between lion and lamb" where users face the ultimatum of either accepting data sharing or abandoning the platform entirely.
"We will not allow you to share even a single information. You cannot play with the rights of this country," Justice Kant asserted during the proceedings. He further emphasized that "if you are willing to give an affidavit undertaking of your management, then it's fine. Otherwise, we will dismiss it. No question of sharing data."
Background of the Legal Challenge
The bench, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, was hearing appeals filed by Meta and WhatsApp challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment that upheld a substantial penalty of Rs 213.14 crore imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). This penalty stemmed from WhatsApp's controversial 2021 privacy policy that mandated data sharing with parent company Meta.
In a significant development, the court has directed that the deposited penalty amount shall not be permitted for withdrawal until further orders. The bench has allowed the companies to file affidavits explaining their position while simultaneously asking the CCI to propose conditions that should be implemented to safeguard user interests.
Questioning the Reality of 'Opt-Out' Options
The court expressed deep skepticism about the practical implementation of opt-out mechanisms offered to users. Justice Kant questioned how ordinary citizens, particularly those with limited digital literacy, could reasonably navigate complex terms and conditions. "The kind of language you use, very cleverly crafted language, even some of us will not understand that language," he remarked, highlighting the disparity between theoretical consent and practical understanding.
Justice Bagchi reinforced this concern by questioning the effectiveness of notification methods. "You say that you put up some newspaper advertisements. Who reads?" he asked, pointing out the impracticality of expecting users to discover opt-out options through traditional media when platform notifications about data sharing appear regularly.
Broader Concerns About Data Exploitation
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, present during the hearing, articulated a fundamental concern about the commercial exploitation of personal data. "Our privacy data, our personal data is not only sold, it is commercially exploited. We feel we are consumers, (but) we are products," he stated, capturing the essence of the court's apprehension about data monetization practices.
Justice Bagchi expanded on this theme by distinguishing between privacy concerns and data value exploitation. "We are not concerned about privacy. We are concerned how our behavioural tendencies and trends, they can be utilised, monetised and thereby your parent company can leverage it for the purpose of an advantage on online advertising," he explained, indicating the court's intention to examine the economic dimensions of data sharing beyond mere privacy violations.
Implications and Next Steps
The Supreme Court's strong stance represents a significant moment in India's ongoing digital regulation landscape. The bench has made it clear that it expects concrete assurances from the companies regarding data protection while the legal proceedings continue. The court has scheduled the next hearing for February 9 to consider interim directions that might be necessary to protect user interests during the pendency of the case.
This case highlights the growing tension between global technology platforms and national regulatory frameworks, particularly concerning data sovereignty and consumer protection in digital markets where dominant players exercise substantial control.
