India’s Supreme Court has sought clearer assurances from WhatsApp during an ongoing hearing, warning that the platform cannot compromise users’ constitutional right to privacy while examining whether its data-sharing policy relies on coercive consent in a market where WhatsApp holds overwhelming dominance.
The observations were made at the hearing and direction stage, not as part of a final judgment, as the court considers both privacy and competition law issues arising from WhatsApp’s policy framework.
TL;DR
- The Supreme Court granted Meta time to file an affidavit clarifying limits on data sharing.
- Judges stressed privacy is a constitutional right requiring real, voluntary consent.
- The court criticised WhatsApp’s earlier take-it-or-leave-it consent model as coercive.
- The proceedings overlap with a Competition Commission of India penalty under appeal.
The remarks came from a bench of the Supreme Court of India while hearing petitions challenging WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy update. The policy permits WhatsApp to share certain categories of user data, including phone numbers, device information, and interaction-related metadata, with Meta’s broader ecosystem for multiple purposes, including advertising, subject to user consent.
During the hearing, the court granted WhatsApp and Meta time to file an affidavit after the company sought an opportunity to respond. The bench asked for a clear undertaking that WhatsApp user data would not be shared for advertising or other commercial exploitation unless users provide genuine, informed, and voluntary consent. The court indicated that failure to give such assurances could invite stricter directions at a later stage.
Judges reiterated that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, making consent standards especially critical when a digital service functions as essential infrastructure. The court questioned whether consent extracted through non-negotiable terms can be regarded as meaningful at all.
Several judges reacted strongly to the take-it-or-leave-it nature of WhatsApp’s earlier consent mechanism. According to reporting referenced during the hearing, the bench described the approach as inherently coercive when users are forced to accept expanded data-sharing terms or lose access to a dominant communication platform.
WhatsApp, which is owned by Meta, has maintained that personal messages remain end-to-end encrypted. The company has argued that its policy framework complies with Indian law and that users are informed about how data is handled.
Topic For More Insights
However, the Supreme Court indicated that encryption does not resolve concerns related to metadata use and downstream exploitation of personal information. Judges were reported to have used unusually strong language, warning against what was described in coverage as a “decent way of theft,” referring to the extraction of personal data through complex or forced consent structures.
The court did not suggest that WhatsApp must immediately exit India. Instead, the warning was framed as a constitutional safeguard, underlining that continued operations must respect fundamental rights, particularly where market dominance limits user choice.
The case also intersects with competition law scrutiny. The Competition Commission of India previously imposed a penalty on WhatsApp for abusing its dominant position through the same policy update. WhatsApp has challenged that order, and the Supreme Court is now reviewing issues that cut across both privacy protections and monopoly-related concerns.
The proceedings remain ongoing, and legal observers expect the court’s eventual directions to influence how global technology platforms structure consent mechanisms and data-sharing practices for Indian users.
