Meta moves NCLAT over CCI's Rs 213 cr penalty in WhatsApp privacy case

Meta asked the NCLAT to hear the case urgently, noting its implications and the stakes involved and the NCLAT bench led by Chairperson Justice (Retd) Ashok Bhushan is likely to hear it

Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook) moved the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Monday, challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) order imposing a fine of Rs 213 crore on the tech giant for alleged abuse of its dominant position related to WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy.  A bench of the NCLAT is set to hear the case on January 16.  Meta requested the NCLAT to hear the case urgently, citing its implications and the stakes involved. The NCLAT bench, led by Chairperson Justice (Retd) Ashok Bhushan, is likely to hear the matter.  The anti-trust regulator is probing the privacy policy of the company, which it stated appears to be neither transparent nor based on the voluntary consent of users. The CCI had said such a policy could lead to excessive data collection and "stalking" of consumers for targeted advertising to bring in more users, constituting an alleged abuse of its dominant position.  The CCI had earlier informed the court that it was unable to “move an inch” in its investigation into WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy due to a court order granting time to Facebook and the instant messaging platform to file replies related to the probe.  In January 2021, the CCI, on its own, decided to investigate WhatsApp’s updated privacy policy following news reports.  The regulator observed that users were not provided with an appropriate granular choice to object to or opt out of specific data-sharing terms. It added that the reduction in consumer data protection and loss of control over personalised data could be considered a reduction in quality under anti-trust law.  WhatsApp and Facebook subsequently challenged the CCI’s March 2021 single-judge order directing a probe against them, arguing that the issue concerning its new policy was already under consideration by the High Court (HC) and Supreme Court (SC).  However, on April 22, 2021, the single judge refused to interdict the investigation.