In a recent order, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) did more than settle a dispute between WhatsApp and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The court drew a line between law and data privacy in the fast-growing digital economy, and revealed how to deal with platform power in the age of surveillance capitalism. While the tribunal upheld the over Rs 200 crore penalty on Meta Platforms, the parent of WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram, it lifted the CCI’s five-year ban on data sharing between WhatsApp and other Meta entities.
The decision gives Meta a reprieve, and breathing space, even as it does not lower the warning flag. For Meta, the order restores flexibility in its most valuable market. WhatsApp accounts for 535.8 million monthly active users in India, its largest global base. Across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, it reaches more than 850 million Indians. Meta’s India unit recorded Rs 22,730 crore in advertising revenues in 2023-24, a 24 per cent year-on-year growth. Net profit rose 43 per cent to Rs 505 crore. At the global level, Meta reported $164.5 billion in revenue in 2024, up 22 per cent.
By allowing data sharing, NCLAT reopened the pipes that connect WhatsApp’s chat universe with Meta’s wider advertising and business platforms. This restores the monetisation model via business messaging, integrated storefronts, and targeted ad delivery. “We welcome the NCLAT’s decision. While we await the written order, we continue to reiterate that WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy-policy update did not change the privacy of people’s personal messages, which remain end-to-end encrypted,” a Meta spokesperson said. The tribunal accepted that while CCI can scrutinise data-sharing practices due to a dominant position, a blanket ban is excessive.
Experts read the order as a legal signal that India wants to regulate Big Tech with firmness, and not fear. The upcoming Digital Competition Bill 2025 is expected to introduce ex-ante obligations for large digital platforms, which are akin to the clauses in European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). But the former has more flexibility. NCLAT’s order aligns with the idea that India can curb exploitative conduct without stifling innovation or investments. The fact remains that global regulators are redefining what constitutes dominance in the digital era, and most roads lead to data.
The DMA came into effect in May 2023 and designated six companies that include Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft as “gatekeepers.” The law limits how these firms use personal data across services, prohibits self-preferencing, and mandates user consent for targeted advertising. It requires interoperability between the messaging platforms to prevent user lock-in. The objective is to give users and smaller businesses more control over how data is used, and to make markets more contestable. In the US, regulators are more aggressive.
The US Department of Justice has filed antitrust cases against Google for its dominance in search and advertising technologies, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to monitor Meta’s acquisitions and data practices. The approach is focused on structural remedies such as divestitures or business separations, rather than a single rulebook (EU). For consumers, this may eventually mean more transparency, and reduced switching costs, though the progress remains slow and politically contested.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission completed a five-year inquiry into digital platforms, and proposed a regime of mandatory codes of conduct, and interoperability mandates. This framework borrows from the EU model, but is tailored to Australia’s market dynamics. The goal is to reduce data-based dominance, and give consumers the ability to move between services. Across the three markets, the converging message is that data is a source of market power, and unrestricted integration across platforms is a structural advantage that can distort market competition.
Although India’s position is similar in spirit, it is different in execution. It seeks to encourage growth, and keep dominance in check. For the country’s more than half a billion WhatsApp users, the implications of the NCLAT ruling will be both visible and invisible. They can expect a seamless experience as WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook talk to each other. This may lead to better shopping, faster business responses, and more contextual recommendations. Small businesses may benefit from the synergies. Yet, the users have little visibility into how their metadata is used to refine algorithms. The removal of the data-sharing ban means greater operational freedom for Meta, as well as higher dependence on users’ trust.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 provides a legal foundation for consent and purpose limitation. Over time, users are expected to gain clarity and control, including the right to access, correct, and erase data. For now, however, much depends on Meta’s transparency, and the government’s enforcement consistency. India’s competition and data protection frameworks are still works-in-progress. CCI’s interventions against WhatsApp signals a willingness to treat data concentration as an antitrust issue. NCLAT has refined that stance, confirming that competition authorities can act when data policies limit user choice or coerce consent.
The recent order possibly reflects the country’s broader legal-digital philosophy, which is to regulate through accountability, rather than restriction. While the EU sets upfront rules, India prefers a case-by-case approach that allows room for correction without shutting down innovation. This has attracted attention from regulators in other nations such as Indonesia, Brazil, and Nigeria, who are watching India’s experiment on how to balance growth and governance.
Yet, this legal back-and-forth is not complete, and is an evolving issue. The CCI may review NCLAT’s order, and approach the Supreme Court to challenge it. A verdict by the apex court will set a binding precedent on whether data can be treated as a determinant of market dominance under the Competition Act. Such a decision, along with future ones, will shape digital regulation. For Meta, the immediate task is twofold: leverage its freedom while rebuilding user confidence. The company’s attempts to position WhatsApp as a one-stop solution for payments, commerce, and services depend on the trust. If users perceive otherwise, it can become a vulnerability.
Hence, the NCLAT order is less of a triumph, and more of a checkpoint in the evolution of data governance. India’s regulators are maturing, learning from global precedents, and adapting to local realities. For consumers, it implies a future of more interconnected yet closely watched digital ecosystems. The underlying tensions will persist. Integration offers convenience but concentrates power. Regulation promises fairness but risks friction. A balance between the two will decide how India governs its data economy. India looks at Europe for intent, and America for ambition. But it acts with local instincts, and a desire to adapt to local needs.
