News Today: Supreme Court’s compliance order forces changes to Meta and WhatsApp data rules

What changes next is the critical question in news today: the Supreme Court has directed Meta Platforms Inc and WhatsApp to comply with tribunal and Competition Commission of India privacy and consent guidelines that affect advertising-related user data. The order shifts the debate from whether rules apply to how and when they must be implemented, with the court asking for reports and setting a concrete compliance timetable that will drive regulatory scrutiny and corporate revisions in the weeks ahead.

Immediate legal consequences and the compliance timeline — News Today

The three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, dismissed applications seeking a stay on the tribunal order while noting the wider appeal remains. The companies told the court they will implement the tribunal’s directions by March 16, 2026, and the Chief Justice sought a compliance report. The court also asked that the appellants’ affidavit on their privacy policy be examined by the CCI and a response put on record.

Court record and how the penalties and appeals stack up

The Supreme Court is hearing appeals by Meta Platforms Inc and WhatsApp against a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal order dated December 15, 2025. The litigation comes after the Competition Commission of India imposed a penalty of ₹213. 14 crore related to WhatsApp’s privacy policy. Earlier, on November 4, 2025, the tribunal set aside part of a CCI order that had banned data-sharing with Meta for advertising for five years but retained a separate ₹213-crore penalty.

What the companies told the court and procedural filings

WhatsApp maintained in the hearing on February 23, 2026 that it is not properly described as sharing data with other Meta platforms. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal argued that the company’s technology puts a premium on privacy and submitted that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 addresses the privacy concerns raised in court. WhatsApp has filed a comprehensive affidavit explaining end-to-end encryption after sharp remarks from the bench during a February 3 hearing. Mukul Rohatgi also appeared for WhatsApp in the proceedings.

Regulatory scope, tribunal clarifications and the five-year question

The court is seized of a cross-appeal filed by the CCI challenging the NCLAT ruling to the extent it permitted continued sharing of user data for advertising. The tribunal later clarified that its directions cover user-data collection and sharing for non-WhatsApp purposes, including both advertising and non-advertising uses. The NCLAT has emphasised that restoring user choice is central: non-essential collection or cross-use such as for advertising can proceed only with express and revocable consent, and the tribunal considered the CCI’s five-year ban redundant where users were given an opt-in/opt-out choice. Separately, the Supreme Court issued notice proposing a five-year ad ban on WhatsApp, a development that figures in the broader procedural posture.

Here's the part that matters: the court's demand for a compliance report and the CCI's examination of the companies' privacy affidavit converts a technical remedies dispute into active oversight, with tangible deadlines and documentation now on record.

• Companies committed to implement NCLAT directions by March 16, 2026.
• CCI’s penalty stands at ₹213. 14 crore; a related ₹213-crore penalty was retained after the tribunal reviewed the CCI order.
• NCLAT’s December 15, 2025 order and its November 4, 2025 ruling shape current obligations and the scope of permissible data sharing.
• The tribunal requires express, revocable consent for non-essential cross-use like advertising.

It’s easy to overlook, but the court’s insistence on documentary compliance rather than a blanket stay signals that judges want observable proof of changes rather than promises alone.

Signals and next steps

For readers tracking this news today, the real question now is whether documented compliance and the CCI’s review will close the gap between policy statements and practice. The immediate signals to look for are the compliance report to the court, the CCI’s written response to the companies’ affidavit on privacy policy, and any further directions from the bench as it decides the main appeals. Recent hearings — including the stern remarks on February 3 — show the court is prepared to scrutinise both technical claims about encryption and contractual consent mechanisms rather than treat the matter as routine.

These proceedings compress legal, regulatory and technical disputes into concrete steps: deadlines, affidavits and judicial review. That combination is likely to determine how advertising-related data flows will be governed in the near term.