Allahabad HC issues notice on WhatsApp plea challenging consumer commission order

Delhi: Are you a user or a consumer of tech? This pertinent question recently gained traction in the Allahabad High Court. 

The court on Monday issued a notice in a plea filed by Meta-owned messaging platform WhatsApp, challenging an order of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (UPSCDRC) which held that a consumer complaint is maintainable against the company under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Justice Pankaj Bhatia issued notice to the respondent, former IPS officer and Azad Adhikar Sena National President Amitabh Thakur, granting him four weeks to file a counter-affidavit. 

The High Court also ordered a stay on further proceedings arising from the impugned order until further directions are issued.

The matter pertains to a complaint filed by Thakur, alleging that his WhatsApp services were unnecessarily interrupted for six hours, which, he claimed, violated the platform’s terms of service and adversely affected his work. 

The District Consumer Commission in Lucknow had earlier dismissed Thakur’s complaint, ruling that WhatsApp, being a free international service, could not be held accountable under the Consumer Protection Act due to the absence of monetary consideration from the user.

Thakur subsequently appealed to the UPSCDRC, which overturned the District Commission’s decision. The state commission directed the lower forum to register Thakur’s complaint as maintainable and resolve it within the 90-day period stipulated by the Consumer Protection Act.

Challenging this decision, WhatsApp moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The company contended that the UPSCDRC erred in its interpretation of the law, asserting that its users cannot be classified as "consumers" under the Act since no payment is made for the service. 

WhatsApp argued that the 2019 Act is limited to goods and services that involve payment, and explicitly excludes free services from its purview.

“It is undisputed that Respondent has not paid any consideration to avail the WhatsApp service, precluding his claim under the CPA as a matter of law. Indeed, the law is well-settled that free services do not fall within the purview of the CPA, and a person is not a 'consumer' under the CPA if he has not paid any consideration for the service rendered,” WhatsApp's plea stated.

The messaging platform also raised concerns over jurisdiction, arguing that the District Commission was not competent to hear the matter. 

It further contended that the UPSCDRC’s order lacked sufficient reasoning and amounted to a non-application of mind, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Challenging the UPSCDRC’s observation that WhatsApp users are consumers due to the company’s objective to attract customers, the plea stated, “There is no basis in the law to support this conclusion. 

If one were to accept the State Commission's conclusion, the definition of 'consumer' would be rendered meaningless; every person or company with the goal of attracting customers would be subject to the CPA, even if they offered only free services.”