CCI has maintained that it was not examining immoderate alleged violations of individuals’ privacy, arsenic the Supreme Court of India is investigating the substance separately.
In a shocking crook of events, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) told the Delhi High Court that the caller privateness argumentation introduced by WhatsApp aboriginal this twelvemonth could pb to excessive information postulation and stalking of consumers for targeted advertising.
Justice Navin Chawla of the Delhi High Court said that the CCI bid appears to beryllium acrophobic with WhatsApp users’ privateness issues, successful effect to the manufacture watchdog’s stand. CCI has maintained that it was not examining immoderate alleged violations of individuals’ privacy, arsenic the Supreme Court of India is investigating the substance separately.
Currently, the Delhi High Court is proceeding a plea filed by WhatsApp and Facebook to support the CCI’s bid of directing an probe into the caller privateness argumentation astatine arm’s length. Senior advocator Harish Salve appeared for WhatsApp successful the High Court and argued that the contention regulator has “jumped the gun” by ordering the investigation.
In his defence, helium cited 2 reasons to backmost his arguments. Firstly, helium said that the 2021 update doesn’t alteration WhatsApp’s privateness policy. “The argumentation is not altered and is lone an amplification of existing privateness policy. The contention regulator couldn’t person ordered an probe connected this contented since the precocious tribunal and Supreme Court are already proceeding cases connected it,” helium said.
Secondly, helium argued that since the High Court and the Supreme Court are already proceeding akin cases, the CCI can’t bid a abstracted probe connected the aforesaid issue. Senior advocator Aman Lekhi appeared for CCI. He cleared successful the tribunal that the manufacture watchdog is looking astatine the contention facet and not connected the privateness usurpation of an individual. He said that determination is nary question of jurisdictional error, adding that the pleas were “incompetent and misconceived”.