Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has announced a significant update to its data usage policy, set to take effect on December 16. The tech giant plans to utilize user interactions with its generative AI tools to enhance content personalization and ad targeting across its popular social media platforms.

Key Points of the New Policy

• Implementation Date: December 16, 2023
• Notification Period: Users will be informed about these changes starting October 7
• Opt-out Option: Users will not have the ability to opt out of these changes
• Applicability: The policy applies exclusively to users of Meta AI

Data Usage and Personalization

Meta intends to combine AI interactions with existing user data, such as likes and follows, to refine its recommendation algorithms. This integration aims to provide more tailored experiences in various areas:

• Content recommendations
• Reels suggestions
• Targeted advertising

Privacy Considerations

In an effort to address potential privacy concerns, Meta has outlined certain limitations on data usage:

• Conversations about sensitive topics will not be used for advertising purposes. These topics include:
  • Religious views
  • Sexual orientation
  • Political views
  • Health information
  • Racial origin

Geographical Restrictions

The rollout of this new policy will not be global. Notable exclusions include:

• United Kingdom
• European Union
• South Korea

Meta AI's Current Reach

Meta AI has already established a significant user base:

• 1 billion monthly active users across Meta's suite of applications

Strategic Focus

CEO Mark Zuckerberg has emphasized the company's commitment to developing Meta AI as a leading personal AI assistant. The focus areas include:

1. Personalization
2. Voice conversations
3. Entertainment

This move by Meta Platforms represents a significant step in leveraging AI interactions for a more personalized user experience. As the implementation date approaches, it will be interesting to observe how users respond to these changes and how they impact the overall social media landscape.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has concluded hearings on Meta Platforms and WhatsApp's appeals challenging the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) Rs 213.14 crore penalty for alleged unfair business practices. The case revolves around WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy update, which sparked controversy and regulatory scrutiny.

Key Developments

• The NCLAT bench has reserved its judgment after hearing arguments from both sides.
• All parties have been directed to submit written notes.
• The CCI's original order included a five-year ban on sharing WhatsApp user data with other Meta companies for advertising purposes.

Meta's Arguments

Meta's counsel presented several points during the hearings:

1. Accused the CCI of making inaccurate statements in its order.
2. Argued that the regulator's five-year data-sharing ban lacked proper reasoning.
3. Contended that the CCI failed to address their arguments adequately.
4. Claimed the CCI incorrectly interpreted Supreme Court judgments regarding market dominance in online display advertisements.

CCI's Defense

The CCI's counsel stood firm on their position:

1. Defended the penalty, stating that WhatsApp abused its dominant position.
2. Argued that WhatsApp imposed the privacy policy on a 'take it or leave it' basis.
3. Asserted that the matter falls under competition law jurisdiction.

Background of the Case

• The CCI's original order directed Meta to cease anti-competitive practices and implement behavioral remedies.
• A key component of the order was a five-year ban on sharing WhatsApp user data with other Meta companies for advertising purposes.
• NCLAT had issued an interim order staying the five-year ban.

The case highlights the ongoing global scrutiny of tech giants' data practices and their impact on fair competition. The NCLAT's final judgment, once issued, could have significant implications for Meta's operations in India, particularly concerning data sharing between its various platforms.

As the tech industry and regulators closely watch this case, it underscores the complex interplay between privacy policies, data sharing, and competition law in the digital age. The outcome may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in India and potentially influence regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions.