In a landmark decision dated November 4, 2025, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) delivered its judgment in the case of Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India, significantly shaping the competition law landscape concerning digital platforms and data privacy in India. The tribunal partially upheld the Rs 213.14 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) on Meta Platforms and its subsidiary WhatsApp for abuse of dominance related to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy update. However, it quashed the five-year ban imposed by the CCI that prevented WhatsApp from sharing user data with other Meta entities for advertising purposes.
Background of the Case
The controversy began in January 2021 when WhatsApp unilaterally updated its privacy policy mandating users to share data with Meta and its affiliates as a condition to continue using the messaging app, removing the option to opt out. Recognizing potential anti-competitive concerns, the CCI took suo motu cognizance and initiated an investigation under the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”).
The CCI found that WhatsApp, by leveraging its dominant position in the over-the-top (OTT) messaging market, imposed unfair and coercive conditions on users, thereby strengthening Meta’s position in the online advertising market. In November 2024, the CCI imposed a penalty of Rs 213.14 crore on Meta and also banned WhatsApp from sharing user data with other Meta companies for advertising purposes for five years.
The NCLAT Judgment
The NCLAT upheld the penalty, affirming the CCI’s finding that WhatsApp abused its dominant position in the OTT messaging market. In its detailed 184-page judgment, the tribunal confirmed WhatsApp’s dominance and agreed that imposing unfair conditions on users in the privacy policy update constituted an abuse under Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
However, the NCLAT struck down the controversial five-year ban on data sharing between WhatsApp and other Meta entities. It emphasized the absence of “leveraging”, that is, Meta’s dominance in messaging was not conclusively proven to extend to dominance in the online advertising market because WhatsApp and Meta are legally distinct entities.
The NCLAT underscored the need for concrete economic evidence to justify regulatory interventions, stating that CCI’s data-sharing ban lacked sufficient proof to warrant such severe restrictions. WhatsApp was directed to provide a clear, visible opt-out option to users for data sharing with Meta entities, emphasizing transparency and choice.
Implications
This ruling is viewed as a nuanced approach to regulating digital markets. It reaffirms CCI’s jurisdiction over data-driven anti-competitive practices but sets a high evidentiary bar for imposing sweeping remedies affecting business models and user experience.
The judgment highlights the complexities in balancing competition law with data privacy concerns in the digital economy. While Meta faces a substantial financial penalty, the lifting of the data-sharing ban allows continued integration of Meta’s ecosystem, albeit with greater user control over privacy decisions.
Conclusion
This case marks a crucial precedent in India’s evolving competition jurisprudence regarding the digital economy and data regulation. It sends a clear signal that competition authorities must base their findings on robust, market-specific evidence and respect the legal and operational distinctions among entities within conglomerates.
This decision will likely influence future cases involving digital platform dominance, user data rights, and the interplay between competition and privacy law in India, setting a course for further regulatory refinement in this dynamic area.
Disclaimer: The information published in the above newsletter is collected from various sources in electronic medium and analyzed by the firm. The reader is advised to consult the attorney qualified in their jurisdiction, before acting on any information contained in this newsletter. India Juris excepts no liability what so ever in this regard.
