Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 JULY 2021

Rematerializing The Caveat Emptor Doctrine: Tackling WhatsApp's Privacy Policy

JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Contributor
JSA Advocates & Solicitors

JSA Advocates & Solicitors

Established in 1991 Our services: JSA is a leading law firm in India with more than 600...

View firm profile
Explore more from JSA Advocates & Solicitors

In January 2021, WhatsApp rolled out a new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. While it is undeniable that WhatsApp has broadened the use of its users' personal information, the legal challenges do not seem well founded.

IndiaPrivacy
Probir Roy Chowdhury
Probir Roy Chowdhury
Rohit Gupta
Rohit Gupta
Author LinkedIn connections

Co author - Rohit Gupta, penultimate year student at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences.

I. INTRODUCTION

In January 2021, WhatsApp rolled out a new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. While it is undeniable that WhatsApp has broadened the use of its users' personal information, the legal challenges do not seem well founded. This article attempts to supplant hysteria with an objective analysis of current data protection regulations. Rather than vilify a company for following the letter of the law, India should focus on why there isn't a better one.

II. WHERE DOES THE LAW STAND?

As compared to the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 ("PDP Bill"), the law as it stands is much less demanding of companies in the business of collecting and using their users' data. Under Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 ("SPDI Rules"), the only data

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Cross-Border Data Transfers Under India’s DPDP Act: Rules, Restrictions And Compliance Roadmap For 2027

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) introduces a relatively permissive framework for the cross-border transfer of personal data from India. Unlike the European Union’s GDPR, which relies extensively on adequacy decisions and prescribed transfer safeguards, the DPDP framework adopts a negative-list approach: international transfers are generally permitted, subject to restrictions that may be notified by the Central Government.
IndiaPrivacy
King, Stubb & Kasiva
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article

DPDP Data Breach Notification In India: Timelines, Requirements And Key Compliance Considerations

A personal data breach can create immediate legal, operational, and reputational consequences for an organisation. Under India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (DPDP Rules), specific obligations have been prescribed for Data Fiduciaries following a personal data breach. While organisations may already have broader data protection and cybersecurity measures in place, breach notification requires a distinct and time-sensitive response. The DPDP framework requires communication both to affected Data Principals and to the Data Protection Board of India.
IndiaPrivacy
King, Stubb & Kasiva
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article

Data Retention And Deletion Under The DPDP Act: How Long Can Businesses Retain Personal Data In India?

India’s data protection framework has moved from legislation to implementation. With the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“DPDP Rules”) now notified, organizations processing personal data in India need to reassess how long they retain personal data, why they retain it, and how they ultimately delete or anonymize it.
IndiaPrivacy
King, Stubb & Kasiva
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article

What Happens To Existing SPDI Rules After Full DPDP Enforcement?

India’s data protection landscape is undergoing its most significant shift in over a decade. The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules”), have long formed the core of personal data protection obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act“) for body corporates handling sensitive personal data or information.
IndiaPrivacy
King, Stubb & Kasiva
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article

From Consent To Accountability: Japan’s 2026 APPI Amendment Bill And The New Data Strategy For AI-Driven Businesses

AI regulation does not always arrive in the form of a dedicated AI statute. More often, it enters through privacy law. On April 7, 2026, the Japanese Cabinet approved a bill to amend Japan’s Act on the Protection of Personal Information (“APPI”). The Diet passed the amendment on July 10, 2026, and it was promulgated on July 17, 2026 as Act No. 56 of 2026; the amendment is now enacted but not yet in force, with its main provisions taking effect on a date to be fixed by Cabinet order no later than mid-2028.
IndiaPrivacy
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Article

The Supreme Court Of India Clarifies: Order II Rule 2 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Cannot Be A Ground For Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(D) Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

A two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in S. Valliammai and Ors. vs. S. Ramanathan and Anr. recently held that Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) cannot constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The Supreme Court drew a critical distinction between the two provisions clarifying that while Order II Rule 2 curtails the right to sue for certain claims or reliefs, but it does not bar filing of a suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Article

Supreme Court Clarifies That Compromise Decrees Asserting Pre-existing Rights Are Not Subject To Registration Or Payment Of Stamp Duty

In the recent case of Mukesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India adjudicated on the issue of whether compromise decrees that assert pre-existing rights necessitate registration under the Registration Act, 1908 and are subject to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act of 1899.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors