Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, on Monday submitted before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) had failed to prove that the US-headquartered social media and communication services firm had abused its dominant position, leading to the denial of market access for other online advertisers.
The competition watchdog last year held that WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy, which allowed it to share user data with the parent company, helped Meta maintain and abuse its dominance in the online display advertising market.
Amit Sibal, representing Meta, argued that for a company to be held liable for abusing its dominance under competition law, the CCI should establish three conditions: the company is dominant in the relevant market in which the abuse has happened, the dominant conduct has occurred and the conduct has a tangible anti-competitive effect in the market.
"None of the three conditions has been shown," Sibal argued.
He said the "online display advertising market" as defined by the CCI to be a relevant market is flawed, as the relevant market depends on the substitutability and interchangeability of products, which the authority has excluded from the relevant market definition in this case.
The competition watchdog last year held that WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy, which allowed it to share user data with the parent company, helped Meta maintain and abuse its dominance in the online display advertising market.
Amit Sibal, representing Meta, argued that for a company to be held liable for abusing its dominance under competition law, the CCI should establish three conditions: the company is dominant in the relevant market in which the abuse has happened, the dominant conduct has occurred and the conduct has a tangible anti-competitive effect in the market.
"None of the three conditions has been shown," Sibal argued.
He said the "online display advertising market" as defined by the CCI to be a relevant market is flawed, as the relevant market depends on the substitutability and interchangeability of products, which the authority has excluded from the relevant market definition in this case.
( Originally published on Sep 15, 2025 )