Meta to challenge CCI’s Rs 213 crore penalty over WhatsApp privacy policy update

Meta has announced plans to challenge the Rs 213.14 crore fine imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for alleged anti-competitive practices linked to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy update. The company, which owns WhatsApp, expressed its disagreement with the CCI's decision in a statement issued today (November 19).

“We disagree with the CCI’s decision and plan to appeal. As a reminder, the 2021 update did not change the privacy of people’s personal messages and was offered as a choice for users at the time. We also ensured no one would have their accounts deleted or lose functionality of the WhatsApp service because of this update,” a Meta spokesperson stated.

The CCI accused Meta of abusing its dominant market position in India across two key sectors: Over-the-Top (OTT) messaging services and online display advertising. The 2021 policy changes required WhatsApp users to accept revised terms by February 8, 2021, effectively mandating data sharing with other Meta companies to continue using the service. The CCI deemed this "take-it-or-leave-it" approach as harmful to user choice and in violation of fair competition principles.

The competition watchdog also ruled that WhatsApp's data-sharing practices gave Meta an unfair edge in the digital advertising market, hindering competitors' ability to establish a foothold. These actions were found to contravene India’s Competition Act.

As part of the ruling, the CCI directed Meta and WhatsApp to halt data-sharing practices for advertising purposes for five years. The commission also mandated several behavioural remedies, including clearer explanations for non-advertising-related data sharing and offering users the ability to opt out of data sharing entirely through app settings.

The ruling signals increased regulatory scrutiny of major tech companies in India, emphasizing the need for transparency and fair competition in the digital economy. With Meta planning to appeal, the case is set to remain a focal point in the ongoing debate over the balance of power between big tech and regulatory authorities.