On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from Meta and WhatsApp challenging a Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruling that fined them Rs 213.14 crore for its privacy practices.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant will preside over the bench that will hear the case. On February 3, the bench issued harsh observations against WhatsApp and Meta Platforms Inc.
“You cannot violate this nation’s residents’ right to privacy in the sake of data sharing. We will not let you share any of the information. We will have to issue an order unless you provide an undertaking. The Bench had stated, “You cannot infringe upon citizens’ right to privacy.”
The Bench noted that there was no obvious way for a WhatsApp user to opt out of such a privacy policy when considering appeals from Meta and WhatsApp contesting a Competition Commission of India (CCI) judgment that imposed a penalty of Rs 213.14 crore over the privacy policy.
Senior attorneys Akhil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi had informed the Bench on behalf of WhatsApp and Meta that the penalty money had already been deposited.
Additionally, the CCI has petitioned the highest court to overturn the NCLAT’s ruling permitting Meta and WhatsApp to exchange user data for commercial gain. “Our personal data is not only sold, but also financially exploited,” in the words of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
“Where is the opt-out question? Show me on your phone. This is a respectable method of stealing personal data. You are aware of your business interests and how you have led users to become dependent on the app.
Everyone makes advantage of it. How will users be aware that they have the option to opt out? Let us examine the choice. There is information in a newspaper about opting out. The CJI had questioned, “How will a person know?”
The highest court criticized WhatsApp’s privacy policy and declared, “We will not let the rights of any citizen of this nation to be compromised,” characterizing Meta and WhatsApp users as passive, disorganized, and technologically dependent consumers ignorant of the consequences of data-sharing practices.
Making the Center a party to the case was a directive from the top court. The Bench scheduled the case for additional hearing on February 9 when it would consider issuing some interim orders, and asked the Center to submit an affidavit outlining its stance on the controversial topic.
It had forewarned the tech behemoths that it would not allow any user data sharing without sufficient security measures.
