The Supreme Court cautioned messaging platform WhatsApp and its parent company Meta that data sharing cannot be used to infringe citizens’ privacy rights, observing that a “take it or leave it” privacy policy is unequal and unlawful.
The bench led by Chief Justice Suryakant stated that the right to privacy in India is constitutionally protected and cannot be diluted through corporate agreements. The court said that imposing conditions on users without providing a real choice runs contrary to law and democratic values.
The court observed that digital platforms have a responsibility not only to provide services but also to safeguard users’ rights.
Court Questions Complexity of Privacy Terms
During the hearing, the court raised objections to the language used in WhatsApp’s privacy terms, stating that the conditions are drafted in a manner that ordinary citizens are unable to understand. The bench said users often end up sharing personal information without fully comprehending the implications.
The court questioned why users are not provided a clear opt-out option from data sharing. It said that when terms are so complex that even educated users may struggle to understand them, the principle of transparency is compromised.
Unequal Nature of Take It or Leave It Model
The Supreme Court also expressed concern over WhatsApp’s business model, noting that users are left with no meaningful choice other than accepting the entire policy or discontinuing use of the application.
The court described such arrangements as unequal agreements that take advantage of users’ compulsion. It observed that services such as WhatsApp have become an essential means of communication, making it impractical to expect users to simply stop using the platform.
Impact on Less Educated Users
Chief Justice Suryakant questioned whether individuals engaged in informal occupations or domestic work would be able to understand privacy terms written in complex legal language. The bench noted that such users lack access to legal advice or assistance to interpret these conditions, yet are presumed to have consented knowingly.
The court said this presumption undermines constitutional values.
Meta’s Submissions and Court’s Response
Senior counsel appearing for WhatsApp and Meta submitted that users have the option to opt out by choosing not to use the application. The court responded by questioning whether this constituted a real choice, given the dependence of millions of users on WhatsApp for daily communication, work, and business.
The bench observed that presenting exit from the platform as an option does not amount to meaningful consent in such circumstances.
Court’s Observations on Data Practices
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court remarked that such privacy policies have turned into a seemingly lawful method of appropriating personal data. The court made it clear that it would not approve any framework that exploits users’ vulnerability or lack of awareness.
Background of the Case
The matter arises from an order of the Competition Commission of India issued in November 2024, following an investigation into WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy update. The commission found that WhatsApp had imposed take it or leave it conditions on users.
The Competition Commission of India held this to be a violation of the Competition Act, 2002, and imposed a penalty of Rs 213.14 crore on Meta Platforms, citing abuse of dominant position.
Appeal Before NCLAT
Meta and WhatsApp challenged the Competition Commission of India’s order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in January 2025. In November 2025, the tribunal lifted the five-year restriction on advertising-related data sharing.
However, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs 213.14 crore imposed on Meta.
