<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (4) TMI 1385 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457126</link>
    <description>A Section 26(1) direction under the Competition Act is only a prima facie, non-adjudicatory step and does not finally determine rights or obligations. Pending constitutional or privacy proceedings concerning WhatsApp&#039;s 2021 update did not bar the Competition Commission from exercising its statutory jurisdiction to examine alleged abuse of dominance, unfair conditions, data-sharing terms, network effects, and the absence of meaningful opt-out. Facebook&#039;s inclusion in the enquiry was also upheld because the alleged competitive concern arose from user data sharing with Facebook companies, making its presence relevant to the investigation. The challenge to the investigation order therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:10:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 1385 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457126</link>
      <description>A Section 26(1) direction under the Competition Act is only a prima facie, non-adjudicatory step and does not finally determine rights or obligations. Pending constitutional or privacy proceedings concerning WhatsApp&#039;s 2021 update did not bar the Competition Commission from exercising its statutory jurisdiction to examine alleged abuse of dominance, unfair conditions, data-sharing terms, network effects, and the absence of meaningful opt-out. Facebook&#039;s inclusion in the enquiry was also upheld because the alleged competitive concern arose from user data sharing with Facebook companies, making its presence relevant to the investigation. The challenge to the investigation order therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457126</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>