India's Supreme Court just told Meta to stop playing games with user privacy. In an unusually sharp hearing Tuesday, judges halted all WhatsApp data-sharing while they investigate whether the messaging giant is exploiting its monopoly position in the country's 500-million-user market. Chief Justice Surya Kant warned the court won't allow Meta to share "a single piece of information" while the case proceeds, questioning how users can meaningfully consent when WhatsApp is essentially the only game in town.
Meta walked into India's Supreme Court expecting a routine appeal hearing. What it got was a pointed interrogation about monopoly power, user consent, and exactly how WhatsApp turns half a billion Indian users into advertising revenue.
The Tuesday hearing centered on Meta's challenge to a ₹2.13 billion penalty - about $23.6 million - imposed by India's competition regulator over WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy update. But the judges quickly moved beyond the fine itself to probe fundamental questions about data monetization and user choice in a market where WhatsApp has become the default communications infrastructure.
Chief Justice Surya Kant delivered the most striking rebuke, telling Meta the court would not allow the company to share even "a single piece of information" while the appeal proceeds. His reasoning cut to the heart of the consent debate: when everyone from street vendors to domestic workers depends on WhatsApp to make a living, can they really be said to have chosen to accept its privacy terms?
"How can a poor woman selling fruits on the street or a domestic worker be expected to grasp how their data is being used?" Kant asked, according to TechCrunch's reporting. The question highlights what the court sees as a fundamental mismatch between Meta's legal framework and ground reality in its largest market.
India represents more than just scale for Meta. With over 500 million users, it's WhatsApp's biggest market globally and a critical growth engine for Meta's advertising business. That commercial imperative is exactly what has judges concerned. Justice Joymalya Bagchi pressed Meta's lawyers on the commercial value of behavioral data and metadata, arguing that even anonymized information carries economic worth when used for targeted advertising.
