<?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>2025 (2) TMI 76 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765530</link>
    <description>The NCLAT stayed the CCI&#039;s five-year ban on WhatsApp and Meta from sharing user data for advertising purposes, finding it could collapse their business model. The tribunal noted WhatsApp provides free services and has shared data for advertising since 2016. However, other CCI directions regarding data sharing for non-advertising purposes were upheld and must be complied with. The penalty was stayed subject to depositing 50% of the amount (considering 25% already deposited) within two weeks. The NCLAT emphasized that while the SC supported CCI&#039;s suo moto jurisdiction, the final order must be tested on its merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:13:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=794922" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 76 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765530</link>
      <description>The NCLAT stayed the CCI&#039;s five-year ban on WhatsApp and Meta from sharing user data for advertising purposes, finding it could collapse their business model. The tribunal noted WhatsApp provides free services and has shared data for advertising since 2016. However, other CCI directions regarding data sharing for non-advertising purposes were upheld and must be complied with. The penalty was stayed subject to depositing 50% of the amount (considering 25% already deposited) within two weeks. The NCLAT emphasized that while the SC supported CCI&#039;s suo moto jurisdiction, the final order must be tested on its merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>