India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered an unusually sharp rebuke to Meta, warning that it would not allow the social media giant to “play with the right to privacy” of Indian users, as judges questioned how WhatsApp monetizes personal data.

The comments were made as Meta appealed a penalty imposed over WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy.

The judges repeatedly asked the company how users can meaningfully consent to data-sharing practices in a market where the app is pretty much the default communications platform.

With more than 500 million users, India is WhatsApp’s largest market and a key growth area for Meta’s advertising business.

Judges in the case question the potential commercial value of metadata generated by the platform, and how such data could be monetized across Meta’s wider advertising and AI functions.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Supreme Court would not allow Meta and WhatsApp to share even “a single piece of information” while the appeal was pending, arguing that users faced little real choice in accepting WhatsApp’s privacy policy.

Calling the messaging service a monopoly in practice, Kant questioned how “a poor woman selling fruits on the street” or a domestic worker could be expected to grasp how their data was being used.

Other judges also pressed Meta on how user data was analyzed beyond message content.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the court wanted to examine the commercial value of behavioral data and how it was used for targeted advertising, arguing that even anonymized or siloed information carried economic worth.

Government lawyers added that personal data was not only collected but also commercially exploited.

Meta’s lawyers said the platform’s messages are end-to-end encrypted and inaccessible even to the company, arguing that the privacy policy in question did not weaken user protections or allow chat content to be used for advertising.

Techcrunch event TechCrunch Founder Summit 2026: Tickets Live On June 23 in Boston, more than 1,100 founders come together at TechCrunch Founder Summit 2026 for a full day focused on growth, execution, and real-world scaling.

Learn from founders and investors who have shaped the industry.

Connect with peers navigating similar growth stages.

Walk away with tactics you can apply immediately Save up to $300 on your pass or save up to 30% with group tickets for teams of four or more.

TechCrunch Founder Summit: Tickets Live On June 23 in Boston, more than 1,100 founders come together at TechCrunch Founder Summit 2026 for a full day focused on growth, execution, and real-world scaling.

Learn from founders and investors who have shaped the industry. Connect with peers navigating similar growth stages. Walk away with tactics you can apply immediately Save up to $300 on your pass or save up to 30% with group tickets for teams of four or more.

Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW The case stems from a 2021 update to WhatsApp’s privacy policy that required users in India to accept broader data-sharing terms with Meta or stop using the service.

India’s competition regulator later imposed a ₹2.

13 billion (around $23.

6 million) penalty, finding that the policy abused WhatsApp’s dominant position in the messaging market.

That ruling was upheld on appeal before Meta and WhatsApp moved the Supreme Court to challenge it.

Meta’s lawyers told the court the penalty had already been paid.

The Supreme Court has adjourned the matter until February 9, allowing Meta and WhatsApp to explain their data practices in greater detail.

At the suggestion of the competition regulator, the court also agreed to add the IT ministry as a party to the case, widening the scope of the proceedings.

Meta declined to comment.

WhatsApp has been facing heightened scrutiny over its data privacy across the world.

have reportedly examined claims that WhatsApp chats may not be as private as the company asserts, adding to broader questions about how encrypted messaging platforms handle user data.

In India, WhatsApp is also navigating new regulatory constraints, including recent SIM-binding rules aimed at curbing fraud, which could limit how widely small businesses use the messaging service

Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding claims. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Claim Quality:
✓ Healthy Claim - No fallacies or contradictions detected
⚠️ Minor Issues - Has contradictions or minor fallacies
🚨 Serious Issues - Multiple contradictions or severe fallacies
Quality Criteria: Claims are evaluated for logical fallacies and contradictions with other news sources. Green highlights indicate healthy claims suitable for reference.
Source