Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27.2 The same questions of data protection and privacy law analysed by the DG are being adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court. A decision by these Courts in the Privacy Policy Litigations will be binding on the DG and the Commission and, therefore, the DG should not have arrived at any pre-emptive findings on these issues.

27.3 The DG has gone against the Commission's own submissions before the Delhi High Court where it had clarified that it will only look at the competition aspects of the 2021 Update, and not the data protection and privacy aspects.

27.4 Two special statutes, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) which provides for a framework of lawful consent and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) along with the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 (Privacy Rules) address data protection and privacy issues. Further, where a subject- specific law occupies the field, the courts have held that it must take precedence over the Act.

28.8 Consequently, data-related practices can sometimes trigger concerns that require simultaneous intervention from multiple branches of law. For instance, data-driven conduct by a dominant firm may raise privacy concerns under data protection law and also constitute an abuse of market dominance under competition law. Therefore, a comprehensive approach is necessary to create a market structure that is competitive, transparent, and beneficial to consumers in terms of price, quality, privacy, choice, etc. 28.9 Data protection laws apply universally to all entities handling personal data, ensuring the privacy and rights of all individuals. In contrast, Section 4 of the Act, specifically applies only to dominant entities, imposing additional obligations to prevent abuse of market power. There is no inherent conflict or repugnancy between the two statutes, as the Act supplements data protection regulations by placing heightened responsibilities on dominant firms, ensuring they do not leverage their market position in a manner that distorts competition or harms consumer welfare. 

   SM Case No. 01 of 2021 and Case Nos. 05 of 2021 & 30 of 2021                             30
                                                                               Public Version

48.12 Regarding the OP's claim for a global definition of the relevant geographic market, the Commission is of the view that the conditions of competition in the OTT messaging apps market are homogeneous within India, and thus the relevant market should be defined nationally, not globally. India has a unique regulatory environment that significantly impacts the operation of OTT messaging services. Regulatory policies, data privacy laws, and requirements for data localization can differ substantially from those in other countries, affecting how these services are provided and accessed in India. Further, it would be erroneous to include competitors not operating in India in the relevant market based on a global geographic definition, as claimed by WhatsApp as competition is determined by the choices available to consumers in a specific location. Therefore, the scope of relevant geographic market remains the territory of India.