"Decent Way of Committing Theft Of Private Information": Supreme Court Slams Meta and WhatsApp Over Data-Sharing Monopoly

The Supreme Court has slammed 'Meta' and 'WhatsApp' for their data-sharing policies, describing the current market dynamic as a "decent way of committing theft" of private information, and said that it would not permit the exploitation of Indian citizens' personal data.

While hearing appeals against a ₹213.14 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the Court remarked that such a privacy policy is a "mockery of constitutionalism."

The Court emphasized that because the platform holds a complete monopoly, the choice offered to users is not a true choice but rather a "take-it-or-leave-it" agreement akin to a contract between a "Lion and a Lamb."

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi remarked, "The data is exploited purely for commercial consideration...And what kind of option do you give a street vendor? Say a poor lady sitting on the street selling some fruits, how will she understand your terms and conditions that you opt out or remain in? Can you imagine the kind of language you use? A very cleverly crafted language, even some of us will not understand that language. When you say, now sign it, I agree. Who is going to understand that language? Every such condition must be examined from the perspective of a common consumer in this country...How many people will understand those legal implications which you impose on the condition? So, where is the question of opt-out? Because people don't understand that complication. Please show me your mobile, or I will bring my mobile, and you show that how this opt-out business operates. Nobody will be able to understand it...And by now we do not know how millions data you must have. This amounts to, in a way, it's a decent way of committing theft of the information, of private information. We will not allow it to happen...Unless at the time of final hearing...you will have to give an undertaking, otherwise we are going to impose a very, very strict condition."

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for the Petitioners, Senior Advocate Samar Bansal, appearing for the Competition Commission of India and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India.

The Bench said, "What is the choice with the customer?...because you have complete monopoly in the market and you will say I am giving a choice, the choice is like the agreement between Lion and Lamb, that either you walk out of WhatsApp facility or I will share with you data. Why should we allow it? Well, it is the impugned order as two things. The choice is very simple...Will you give an undertaking with the direction we are issuing or we will dismiss it right now?...You have made mockery of the constitutionalism of this country...We will not allow you to share a single word of your data. These things must be very clear...If you are ready to give an affidavit undertaking of your management, it is fine. Otherwise, we will dismiss it. No question of sharing data...How can you play with the right of privacy of the people like this?"

"Because you have been bought by Facebook. Tomorrow, Facebook and WhatsApp will be bought by someone else, and you will transfer the entire data...If they avail your services, it is not free of cost that you are providing to them. People pay you charges for that", the Chief Justice remarked.

Rohatgi submitted, "There is a matter pending before a constitution bench of this court in which this very policy We are aware. There is an order that we can carry on in the same fashion when they wanted us to stay on their policy. This court passed a detailed order."

Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that even if messages are encrypted, the behavioural trends and metadata extracted from millions of users are monetized and leveraged for targeted advertising. While WhatsApp argued that its service is provided free of charge, the Court countered this by highlighting that the users themselves have become the product. The bench suggested that India may need to follow international precedents, such as those in the European Union, where the sharing of personal data carries a recognized monetary and taxable value.

"And we are examining a player who is held to be a dominant player in the relevant field, imposing conditions which appear to be patently unfavorable to the user...The advantage that you have is not the concurrent findings have been interfered with by the NCLAT, and the remedy has been tweaked to a certain extent, so that the sharing for the online advertising business embargo for five years has been lifted. Now the question is, and what the Chief Justice has been repeatedly flagging is that, let us say, if this condition is lifted, the other conditions are basically eye wash. It's been said that the users would have a right to opt-out. Now, how will the users know their right to opt-out or would be aware that there is a realistic decision-making position for them in this option, which is a part of 247.2 Directions. You say that you put up a newspaper advertisement...Let us see the option and the situation between the user and this platform. This platform, every alternate day, would send messages when it comes to questions of sharing. When it comes to information to opting out, it would be on a newspaper, and how many do you expect will read that disclosure in the newspaper?", Justice Bagchi said.

In their defence, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Akhil Sibal argued that WhatsApp messages remain end-to-end encrypted and that no personal details are shared. They also pointed to the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023, which they claimed provides a grace period until May 2027 for companies to comply with new standards. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, noting that the Act is not yet in force and that the "manufactured consent" currently obtained from users remains patently unfavorable. The bench remarked that it would not allow the rights of citizens to be compromised while waiting for future legislation to take effect.

The proceedings concluded with the Court impleading the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) as a party to the case. Meta has been granted permission to file a one-page affidavit by next Monday to detail their data-handling activities and provide a proposal for restraint. The Court remains poised to issue an interim order to protect the public interest, stressing that no commercial venture should thrive at the cost of the fundamental rights enjoyed by the people of India.

Background

In January 2021, the Commission took suo motu cognisance of certain media reports stating that WhatsApp has updated its privacy policy and terms of service for its users. It was inter alia reported that the new policy makes it mandatory for the users to accept the terms and conditions in order to retain their WhatsApp account information and provides as to how it will share personalised user information with Meta and its subsidiaries.

With respect to sharing of WhatsApp user data for purposes other than advertising, the CCI gave the following directions: "247.2.1 WhatsApp’s policy should include a detailed explanation of the user data shared with other Meta Companies or Meta Company Products. This explanation should specify the purpose of data sharing, linking each type of data to its corresponding purpose...247.2.2 Sharing of user data collected on WhatsApp with other Meta Companies or Meta Company Products for purposes other than for providing WhatsApp services shall not be made a condition for users to access WhatsApp Service in India...247.2.3 In respect of sharing of WhatsApp user data for purposes other than for providing WhatsApp Services, all users in India (including users who have accepted 2021 update) will be provided with: a) the choice to manage such data sharing by way of an opt-out option prominently through an in-app notification; and b) the option to review and modify their choice with respect to such sharing of data through a prominent tab in settings of WhatsApp application."

The Commission also directed that the parties cease and desist from indulging in anti-competitive practices that have been found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. The Commission also held Meta to be dominant in the first relevant market. Furthermore, Meta was found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

Accordingly, the matter is now listed for interim orders on February 9, 2026.

Cause Title: Meta Platforms, Inc v. Competition Commission Of India And Ors. [C.A. No. 301-302/2026] and Whatsapp LLC V Competition Commission Of India And Ors. [C.A. No. 366-367/2026]