New Delhi: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) ruling this week on WhatsApp’s privacy policy, upholding a penalty on the messaging app while scrapping a five-year ban on sharing data with its parent Meta, has put the spotlight on how India has been pushing back against Big Tech on competition disputes.
The ruling offers Meta partial relief, but keeps its privacy practices under close watch—a sign that India’s regulators are actively calling out unfair conduct, even if they are avoiding blanket restrictions.
This case is among a string of investigations and appeals involving tech majors, such as Google, Amazon, Flipkart, and X (formerly known as Twitter), for practices ranging from restrictive platform rules, to pricing and billing policies, reflecting India’s tighter scrutiny of market dominance.
On 4 November, the NCLAT partly overturned a major 2024 order by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against WhatsApp and Meta Platforms, setting aside the ban on data sharing between the two, saying they are distinct legal entities.
In November 2024, the CCI had held that WhatsApp had abused its dominant market position by compelling users to accept its 2021 privacy policy, which had enabled the sharing of user data with Meta for advertising and business purposes.
The commission had concluded that it amounted to an abuse of dominance under Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, which prohibits imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions on consumers. Apart from the data-sharing ban, the regulator had also imposed a Rs 213 crore fine on Meta and WhatsApp.
On appeal, the NCLAT agreed that WhatsApp’s 2021 policy update restricted user choice and transparency, and therefore, upheld the Rs 213 crore penalty in its latest decision. However, it found that the CCI had overstepped in imposing a blanket data-sharing ban without proving specific market harm.
Also Read: What does NCLAT order mean for data-sharing ban, penalty imposed by CCI on Meta & WhatsApp
Google’s dual anti-trust battles
In one of India’s most significant tech showdowns, the CCI, in October 2022, had fined Google Rs 1,337 crore for abusing its dominance in the Android ecosystem. Investigators had found that Google was forcing phone makers to pre-install its apps, like Chrome, Search and YouTube, while restricting alternatives.
This meant that users had fewer choices, and smaller app makers struggled to compete fairly. This move also gave Google an unfair advantage in shaping what people saw and used on their devices.
Later, in 2023, the NCLAT upheld the fine, showing that India is serious about ensuring a fair and open digital market for everyone.
Google was also hit with a Rs 936.44 crore penalty over its Play Store billing policies by the CCI in October 2022. The CCI had found that Google was restricting developers from offering alternative payment options, forcing them to use its own billing system. It had also said Google was not being fully transparent about how billing data was used. The commission ordered Google to allow third-party payment options and be clearer about its billing practices.
The NCLAT in 2025 agreed that Google had abused its dominance under Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, but reduced the fine to about Rs 216.69 crore.
This case highlighted the need to ensure that app developers have choices and users are not locked into a single payment system.
Amazon and Flipkart
In another case, the CCI had, in 2019, launched an investigation into allegations that Amazon India and Flipkart had used their online platform dominance to favour certain sellers, give them better deals, and push others out of competition. These sellers got special services, like marketing and delivery at a low cost.
They also reportedly used foreign investment structures to subsidise these services, creating an environment where ordinary sellers were at a severe disadvantage.
The CCI imposed a Rs 200 crore penalty on Amazon in 2021 for failing to make full and correct disclosures while seeking approval for its investment in Future Coupons Pvt Ltd in 2019.
The NCLAT in 2022 upheld the CCI’s penalty and the suspension of the deal. The Supreme Court stayed the recovery of the penalty until further hearing.
Apple’s App Store
Apple is also under investigation for its App Store policies, which require developers to use its in-app payment system and pay commissions.
Complaints from a non-profit organisation, Together We Fight Society, triggered a CCI investigation in 2021 into whether these rules amount to abuse of dominance in the iOS ecosystem.
The CCI found that the App Store was the only channel for most iOS developers to reach users, giving it the ability to control how apps operate, restrict pricing and limit options for users.
The probe is ongoing and will decide if Apple’s practices violate India’s competition law.
The investigation will determine whether these restrictions are unfair, and if Apple will need to change its policies in India.
X vs Indian govt
In another high-profile case, in 2025, the Karnataka High Court upheld the legality of the Sahyog Portal, which allows the government to ask social media platforms to take down or block posts that break Indian laws according to them.
The order came after X Corp challenged its validity, saying this system was unfair because it allowed officers to remove content without proper checks or a clear legal process.
It argued that only formal rules (like under Section 69A of the IT Act) should allow content to be blocked, and that the Sahyog Portal was like a “shortcut” that ignored proper procedure.
The Karnataka High Court rejected X’s argument that it violated free speech, or was too arbitrary, saying that the Sahyog Portal was constitutional. It told X that it had to follow Indian laws and remove or block content when ordered through this portal to operate in India.
In 2022, X took the Indian government to court, stating it was given multiple orders telling it to block certain accounts and tweets, citing harm or threat to the country’s security.
According to India’s IT law, the government has the power to block online content if it threatens security. X argued that this was unfair because, under the law, the government can only block specific tweets, not whole accounts.
It also said the orders didn’t clearly explain why the content was being blocked, and the people posting it weren’t told about it.
The government said the orders were legal and secret for a reason. It said some of the content came from “anti-India campaigners”, and if those users were warned, they might post even more harmful messages.
In 2023, the Karnataka High Court rejected the plea, ruling in favour of the government’s authority to regulate content and enforce takedowns.
Gargi B.A. is an intern with ThePrint.