WhatsApp abused dominant position by imposing privacy policy on “take it or leave it” basis: CCI to NCLAT

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh submitted that no other player comes close in terms of user dependence, network effects and cross-platform synergy.

NCLAT, WhatsApp and Meta

Published on:

23 Sep 2025, 1:51 pm

3 min read

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Tuesday told the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that Meta’s size, resources and integration of Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp places it far ahead of competitors, making WhatsApp the dominant force in India’s market for messaging apps. [Meta INC, WhatsApp v. CCI]

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for CCI, submitted that no other player comes close in terms of user dependence, network effects and cross-platform synergy.

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh

Singh argued that WhatsApp’s reach and daily engagement levels, reinforced by powerful network effects, ensure that users remain locked into the service. Even if consumers install multiple apps, activity remains concentrated on WhatsApp, since switching requires persuading entire networks of contacts to migrate, a hurdle few can overcome.

He added that integration across Meta’s ecosystem magnifies these effects, as data and functionalities are shared between services. This cross-platform advantage attracts advertisers, developers and businesses, reinforcing Meta’s lead. Smaller rivals such as Telegram and Signal, Singh said, have user bases too limited to dent WhatsApp’s grip on the market.

Building on this finding of dominance, Singh said that WhatsApp abused its position by imposing the 2021 privacy policy on a “take it or leave it” basis.

Notifications presented the revised terms as mandatory, creating what he described as a manufactured sense of urgency. Users, fearful of losing access to a vital communication tool, were left with little choice but to comply.

He also underlined that the 2021 policy removed the limited opt-out safeguard that had existed under the earlier framework. By stripping away this option, WhatsApp compelled even those who had previously rejected cross-platform data sharing to now accept it, effectively leaving no alternative for continued use.

According to Singh, the 2021 policy authorised broad and ambiguous data collection practices that far exceeded what was necessary to provide messaging services. These provisions allowed WhatsApp to gather information from individuals, businesses and third parties, and then integrate that data across Meta’s wider ecosystem. Singh described this as a textbook case of exploitative abuse.

He further stressed that Indian users were treated differently from their counterparts in the European Union, where individuals enjoyed stronger rights such as the ability to rectify or erase their data. The absence of similar protections in India demonstrated that WhatsApp had deliberately chosen to deny Indian consumers the same level of transparency and control, Singh said.

Countering the platform’s claim that the case belongs in the realm of data protection, Singh submitted that privacy is a recognised dimension of competition.

"In digital markets, where services are offered at no monetary cost, data itself becomes the price. A reduction in privacy is, therefore, equivalent to a decline in service quality."

He explained that competition law and data protection law serve complementary roles. Privacy law asks whether consent meets legal standards, while competition law examines whether dominant players are exploiting their position to impose unfair conditions and distort the market. To exclude privacy from competition analysis, Singh warned, would leave large parts of the digital economy unregulated.