Supreme Court presses WhatsApp on consent and data use

Supreme Court scrutiny of WhatsApp’s data practices intensified as the top court questioned whether the messaging platform’s policies align with constitutional guarantees on privacy and informed consent, while warning its parent company that operating in the country requires adherence to domestic law. The bench’s observations came amid an ongoing legal challenge to the 2021 privacy policy and regulatory penalties that have placed Meta and WhatsApp under sustained pressure from both courts and competition authorities.

At the centre of the proceedings is the 2021 update to WhatsApp’s terms, which expanded data-sharing with its parent entity, Meta Platforms. Petitioners have argued that the policy compelled users to accept broader data sharing to continue using the service, undermining free consent and diluting privacy protections recognised as a fundamental right. Judges asked pointed questions on whether users were given a genuine choice, and whether the policy met standards set by constitutional jurisprudence on proportionality and necessity.

The court also weighed in on enforcement actions taken by competition regulators, including a penalty of Rs 213 crore imposed for alleged abuse of market dominance through the policy change. While the competition case proceeds separately, the bench indicated that regulatory findings cannot be viewed in isolation when fundamental rights are implicated. The judges sought clarity on how WhatsApp segregates user data, what information is shared across Meta’s ecosystem, and whether safeguards claimed by the company are verifiable in practice.

During the hearing, the bench underlined that digital platforms operating at scale must respect constitutional norms. A warning was issued that companies unwilling to comply with domestic law cannot insist on unfettered market access. The remark was interpreted as a signal that economic presence does not confer immunity from judicial scrutiny, especially when services have become essential communication infrastructure for millions.

WhatsApp, represented by senior counsel, maintained that the 2021 update did not expand data sharing with Meta for personal messaging, stressing that end-to-end encryption remains intact. The company argued that the policy clarified existing practices related to business messaging and interoperability, and that users who did not accept the update could continue using core features for a limited period. Counsel also pointed to privacy controls and transparency reports as evidence of compliance.

Judges, however, questioned whether technical assurances suffice when consent mechanisms are contested. They asked if an opt-out that effectively restricts service access can be considered voluntary, and whether users were adequately informed of the scope and implications of data sharing. The court referenced earlier rulings that emphasise informed consent as a cornerstone of data protection, especially where asymmetry of power exists between platforms and users.

The case unfolds against a broader regulatory backdrop. A comprehensive digital personal data protection framework is being operationalised, setting clearer obligations for consent, purpose limitation and data minimisation. While the new regime applies prospectively, the court signalled that constitutional standards apply regardless of statutory timelines. The bench noted that platform conduct during transitional periods remains subject to judicial review.

Industry observers say the proceedings could have ripple effects across the technology sector. Messaging and social media platforms rely on integrated data ecosystems to monetise services, particularly through business messaging and targeted advertising. Judicial insistence on granular consent and strict separation of data could require costly re-engineering of systems and clearer disclosures to users.

For Meta, the stakes extend beyond this single policy. The company has faced competition probes and content moderation challenges across multiple jurisdictions, reflecting a global push to rein in Big Tech. A strong judicial stance in one of its largest markets may influence how policies are drafted elsewhere, especially in countries with robust constitutional privacy protections.