- Supreme Court reprimanded Meta over WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy enforcement
- Chief Justice highlighted user data sharing between WhatsApp, Meta, and other firms
- Court questioned validity of consent given under WhatsApp's take-it-or-leave-it policy
As the Supreme Court reprimanded Meta Tuesday - over WhatsApp's 2021 'take it or leave it' privacy policy - Chief Justice Surya Kant offered a personal anecdote to drive home the point.
"If a message is sent to a doctor on WhatsApp... that you are feeling under the weather... and the doctor sends some medicine prescriptions, immediately you start seeing ads..." the Chief Justice said, underlining the argument that Meta and WhatsApp surreptitiously share users' private data between themselves, and with other companies, for commercial purposes.
And, in a sharp observation on that "exploitative" policy, the Chief Justice said, "We will not allow you to share a single digit of our data... if you can't follow our Constitution, leave India..."
The court was hearing a plea regarding the privacy policy, specifically the company law tribunal order upholding the Competition Commission of India's Rs 213 crore fine.
There was also a cross-appeal by the CCI about sharing of user data for advertising purposes, which the tribunal allowed after ruling there was no 'abuse of power' by the company.
Calling the practice a "mockery of the Constitution", the court wanted to know how consent could be considered valid when users were forced to accept the policy.
READ | "Exit India If...": Chief Justice Warns Meta Over WhatsApp Policy
The court also raised questions about the efficacy of the 'opt-out' mechanism Meta and WhatsApp claimed was built into the system, noting that not everyone may understand the "crafty language" used.
The court said it was of the opinion that consumers were being commercially exploited and described silent consumers as victims of the system with "no voice", i.e., the consent obtained by the companies in question was "manufactured consent."
The court then posted the matter to February 9 and said added the federal government as a responded. "The union government may also file its counter affidavit", the court said.














