- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
NCLAT rules in favour of WhatsAPP, says "has not abused dominant position"
NCLAT rules in favour of WhatsAPP, says "has not abused dominant position"
In its recent order, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set aside a petition and upheld a 2017 CCI order which dismissed a complaint of predatory pricing against WhatsApp.
The NCLAT was of the opinion that it is beyond any doubt that WhatsApp has a dominant position, however it has not 'abused its dominant position' based on inputs provided by the Appellant, Fight for Transparency Society NGO.
"We do not find any inconformity in the findings of Competition Commission of India (CCI) and hence, the 'Appeal' deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed," said the NCLAT order dated August 2, 2022.
On 1 June, 2017, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) had rejected the complaint against WhatsApp for predatory pricing filed by the NGO. According to the NGO the changes made by WhatsApp to its privacy policy from the time Facebook acquired it, was an abuse of its dominant position.
The complaint was however rejected by the CCI, following which the NGO challenged the order before the NCLAT, requesting that the fair trade regulator's order be set aside and direction be issued to launch an investigation in the matter.
The NCLAT observed that simply updating the terms and conditions and the users consenting or non-consenting does not amount to an abuse of dominant position in the relevant market where WhatsApp is operating as one of the service providers in the form of messaging App.
The two-member bench also observed that in the market multiple messaging providers are available.
WhatsApp was acquired by Facebook in 2014 by not charging any subscription fee from the users.