SC slams WhatsApp over data sharing with Meta, calls it ‘theft’ of personal info

The Supreme Court restrained WhatsApp from sharing user data with Meta, calling such data sharing exploitation of citizens’ privacy rights

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will not permit the “exploitation” of personal data of even a single Indian citizen, adding that the messaging platform WhatsApp sharing data with its parent company, Meta Platforms, was nothing but a “decent way of committing theft of personal information”.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will not permit the “exploitation” of personal data of even a single Indian citizen (Reuters)

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymala Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi was hearing a batch of appeals and cross-appeals filed by WhatsApp, Meta and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) November 4, 2025 order upholding a ₹213.14 crore penalty over WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy.

Meta told the bench that it had already paid the full penalty, subject to the outcome of the appeal, and also informed the court that the NCLAT had earlier stayed key directions of the CCI relating to data sharing, prompting the present challenge.

The court, however, said it would not tolerate any dilution of user rights in the interim. “We will not allow you to share a single word of data with Meta or anyone else.”

“You are making a mockery of the constitutionalism of this country. We will dismiss it right away. How can you play with the right of privacy of people like this?” the bench said.

Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for WhatsApp, said users were given a choice to “opt out” or disallow the platform from sharing their personal data with Meta companies. The court, however, pointed out that the opt-out policy was highly technical and difficult for most citizens to understand and that consumers were effectively forced to share their personal data.

“What is the choice with the customer? You have created a complete monopoly. Where is the question of opt out? Show me on your mobile what this policy says, or I will show you on my mobile. It is difficult for even us to understand completely. Then how do you expect a common man, a street vendor, or a person in rural Bihar or Tamil Nadu to understand? This is a decent way of committing theft of private information,” it said.

The court also rejected Meta’s claim that WhatsApp is a free service, observing instead that users “pay” with their data. “Our data is the hidden charge for your product,” it said.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who was present in court and will appear for the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology from the next hearing, told the bench that personal data was not merely collected but “commercially exploited”.

“We are not treated as customers but as products,” he said, adding that in Europe, the sharing of personal data is taxable because data has an acknowledged monetary value.

Rohatgi, however, argued that WhatsApp uses end-to-end encryption and cannot read messages exchanged between users. He relied on the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act to contend that a statutory framework now governs data use and envisages compliance timelines of 18 months.

The bench pointed out that the DPDP Act is not yet in force and rejected the argument that it could justify current practices.

The court also flagged a larger concern beyond privacy — behavioural exploitation and monetisation.

“Every silo of data has value. We are not only concerned with privacy, but with how behaviour is tracked, analysed and used for targeted advertising,” the court said, highlighting how targeted advertisements appeared moments after private interactions, such as medical consultations conducted over WhatsApp, even if messages remained encrypted.

Rejecting Meta’s argument that the absence of dominance would negate the value of data, the court noted that the CCI had found dominance in the messaging market and a leading role in online marketing. It said it was apparent that WhatsApp had been using user data for “targeted marketing”.

“WhatsApp is not here to collect data and sell. You are here to provide messaging and communication services. No commercial venture can operate at the cost of the rights of people of this country,” the bench said, adding that addiction to the platform could not become a justification for coercive consent models.

Recording Meta’s payment of the penalty amount, the court directed that the money cannot be withdrawn until further orders. It also restrained WhatsApp from sharing any user data in the meantime.

The court impleaded the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) as a party to the proceedings and posted the matter for February 10 to consider interim directions, making it clear that any further hearing on merits would hinge on Meta’s undertaking to halt data sharing entirely.

Meta Platforms and WhatsApp have moved the Supreme Court challenging the NCLAT ruling that upheld a ₹213.14 crore penalty imposed by the CCI over WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy. In November 2024, the CCI held that WhatsApp had abused its dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002, by forcing users to accept a “take-it-or-leave-it” policy that expanded data sharing with Meta as a condition for continued access to the messaging service.

While Meta and WhatsApp challenged the order before the NCLAT, the appellate tribunal in January 2025 stayed both the penalty and the CCI’s five-year ban on data sharing, citing concerns that the ban could disrupt WhatsApp’s free-to-use business model. In its final judgment delivered in November 2025, the NCLAT partly ruled in WhatsApp’s favour by setting aside the CCI’s finding that Meta had leveraged its dominance in messaging to protect its online advertising business, but it upheld the ₹213.14 crore penalty. On a clarification plea by the CCI, the NCLAT later restored the regulator’s user-choice safeguards and granted WhatsApp three months to comply with the remedial directions.