WhatsApp, Meta can redact confidential info from judgment, says NCLAT

WhatsApp, through its lawyer, had sought redaction of confidential material on pages 194 to 196 of the judgment

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Tuesday allowed WhatsApp and Meta’s request to redact confidential commercial information from the appellate tribunal's November 4 judgment.

 

A Bench comprising chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and technical member Arun Baroka directed that specific portions of the judgment identified as confidential and highlighted in the parties' submissions be removed from the publicly-available version and certified copies. And, no inspection of the redacted portions will be permitted.

 

WhatsApp, through its lawyer, had sought redaction of confidential material on pages 194-196 of the judgment. Similarly, Meta had sought redaction of confidential content on pages 200-202, clarifying that only specific segments within identified paragraphs required removal.

 

 

The appellate tribunal had in November set aside the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI’s) direction barring Meta and WhatsApp from sharing user data with other Meta group entities for advertising purposes for five years.

 

The tribunal, however, upheld the ₹213.14 crore penalty and other directions issued by the CCI.

 

Recording submissions from counsel for the CCI, the Bench noted that the commission had no objection to the request.

 

It ordered that the designated material be removed from the judgment uploaded on the tribunal's website and excluded from all certified copies.

 

Last week, CCI had approached NCLAT seeking clarity on the November 4 ruling. It had overturned the CCI’s directive barring Meta and WhatsApp from sharing user data with other Meta group companies for advertising purposes for five years.

 

In its application, the CCI has asked the appellate tribunal to clarify whether the privacy safeguards the judgment emphasised for non-advertising data sharing should also apply to data used for advertising.

 

This is given the ruling’s focus on user consent and privacy.