India Tribunal Temporarily Lifts Antitrust Ban on WhatsApp-Meta Data Sharing
The company’s argument remains under scrutiny as the tribunal continues to review the case.
India, Meta’s largest market with over 350 million Facebook users and more than 500 million WhatsApp users, has provided temporary relief to the US tech giant by suspending a five-year data sharing ban.
The ban, imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in November, prohibited data sharing between WhatsApp and other Meta entities for advertising purposes.
Meta had warned that the ban could disrupt its advertising business.
The CCI’s directive faced legal challenges and criticism from Meta, which argued that the commission lacked the technical expertise to assess the consequences of its order.
On Thursday, India’s National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) intervened, suspending the ban while it continues to hear Meta’s appeal against the antitrust ruling.
The tribunal noted that the ban could jeopardize WhatsApp’s business model, potentially forcing it to halt key services.
Meta previously informed the tribunal that it might need to pause or roll back features like personalized ads for businesses on Facebook and Instagram that rely on interactions with WhatsApp users.
Meta’s Indian operations are significant, with its local advertising entity, Facebook India Online Services, reporting $351 million in revenue for the 2023-24 fiscal year, the highest in five years.
A Meta spokesperson welcomed the ruling, stating that the company would evaluate its next steps. The CCI has not yet commented on the decision but retains the option to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
The controversy surrounding WhatsApp’s data practices dates back to 2021 when the platform’s updated privacy policy drew criticism for pressuring users to accept changes or risk losing access.
The CCI’s November ruling found this policy unfair and directed WhatsApp to give users the choice to opt out of data sharing with Meta entities.
Meta has defended its policy changes, asserting that they were meant to clarify how optional business messaging features work and did not expand data collection or sharing capabilities.
The company’s argument remains under scrutiny as the tribunal continues to review the case.