TEAM CODE : IMCC 29

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GHELI, MYRIA

IN THE MATTER OF :
(APPELEANT ) (RESPONDENT)

SNAPUP Competition Commission of Myria

VS.
FACELOOK NGO – Carte Blanche

APPEAL NO._________/2022

CLUBBED WITH

WRIT PETITION No.___________/2022

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GHELI

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MYRIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELEANT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELEANT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
1. THAT THE CCM HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH DATA-RELATED
MATTERS AND PRIVACY CONCERNS OF SNAPUP AND FACELOOK

[1.1] No Abuse Of Dominant Position

[1.2] That CCM Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With This Matter

[1.3] Powers And Function Of CCM

[1.4] Matter Why Not To Be Dealt By CCM

[1.5] In Glance The Competition Act 2002

2. THAT THE UPDATED PRIVACY POLICY IS NOT A PRIMA FACIE A CASE OF

ABUSE OF DOMINANCE UNDER CCM

[2.1] Competitors of Snapup

[2.2] Reports Available

[2.3] Study By Organisation
[2.4] No Abuse of Dominance Position By Snapup
[2.5] Option Provided By Snapup
[2.6] Options To Delete The Account

2
3. THAT THE PRIVACY POLICY AND TERMS OF SERVICE ARE NOT IN
VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS WELL AS
PROVISIONS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT OF MYRIA

[3.1] Reports on Privacy and its meaning

[3.2] Why Sharing of data is important

[3.3] Purpose of IT Act

[3.4] Section 72 of IT Act

[3.5] What is personal data and sensitive data

4. THAT THE PARENT COMPANY CANNOT BE SCRUTINIZED OR LIABLE FOR A

SUBSIDIARY COMPANY

[4.1] Grounds of liability of Parent Company

[4.2] Liability of Foreign company in respect of foreign countries

[4.3] Organisational Structure of Parent Company

PRAYER

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

NGO Non – Governmental Organization

CCM Competition Commission Of Myria

CCI Competition Commission Of India

DG Director General

NCLAT National Company Law Appellant Tribunal

OTT Over TheTop

HON’BLE Honorable

SEC. Section

ART. Article

IT Information Technology

APP Application

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
Constitution Of India …………………………………………………………………….. 1

Constitution Of Myria ……………………………………………………………….. passim

The Competition Act , 2002 of India …………………………………………………….. 2

The Competition Act , 2002 of Myria …………………………………… ………….passim

The IT Act ,2000 of India ………………………………………………………………….3

The IT Act ,2000 of Myria …………………………………………….………………passim

CCI General Regulation, 2009 …………………………………………………………….4

CCM General Regulation , 2009 …………………………………………….……… passim

The Personal Data Protection Bill , 2019 Of India ………………………………………. 5

The Personal Data Protection Bill , 2019 Of Myria ………………………………… passim

CASES

1. Vinod Kumar Gupta (case no. 99/2016)

2. Karmanya Singh Sareen V. Union of India W.P. (C) 7663/2016

3. Chaitanya Rohilla v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 677 of 2021 ]
4. Dr. Seema Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 1355 of 2021]
5. Competition Commission of India v. State of Mizoram C.A 1797 of 2015
6. Competition Commission of Myria v. Bharti Airtel (Manu / SC / 1423 / 2018 )
7. Facelook v. Competition Commission of India and Ors. W.P (C) 7663/2016

5
Other References

8. Annual report of internet usage , 2022 by Statista

9. Jana and mCent Report 2017
10. Global Web Index Report 2020
11. www.icsi.edu. Supreme court judgement on Privacy
12. Privacyinternational.org - What information does Snapup has access to
13. Legal Service e-journal article
14. www.itgovernance.eu

15. Legal Service India.com/legal/article-4167

16. Investopedia.com/ask/answers/Snapup/subsidiaries.asp
17. Nortonusefulright.com
18. Harperjames.co.uk
19. Pretyys.co.uk

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

I. The Appellant No. 1 has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 226 Of
the Constitution. Leave has been accordingly granted. The Respondent No. 1
humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

II. The Appellant No. 2 has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 226 Of
the Constitution. Leave has been accordingly granted. The Respondent No.
2 humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The material case arises out of two separate claims: first, a claim by the Competition
Commission Of Myria (hereinafter, “CCM” ) before the High Court Of Gheli against
the Snapup and its parent company Facelook; second, a claim made by the NGO-
Carte Blanche challenging the constitutional validity of the updated privacy policy of
Snapup

I. BACKGROUND
2. Myria is a South Asian country with a written Constitution and a federal form of
Government. The laws of Myria are in pari materia to the laws of India. There are
number of IT-application in Myria which are similar to Snapup. In 2021 Facelook
acquired Snapup and in resultant Snapup updates its new policy which came into
effect from 2022. CCM took the cognizance of the updated policy and ordered the
investigation into the affairs of Facelook and Snapup. Both the entity approached High
Court against the order of CCM. An NGO- Carte Blanche approached High Court of
Gheli challenging the constitutionality validity of Snapup new policy. The policy of
Snapup violated Fundamental Rights and IT Act as claimed by NGO and abuse of
dominant position claimed by CCM

II. The Competition Act, 2002

3. On 19th April, 2022 , Competition Commission of Myria took cognizance of the
matter. It gave direction to DG to look into the matter, Commission claimed that the
Snapup updated policy has violated Section 4 of the Competition Act,2002 by
updating its privacy policy and leaving users with no option other than to opt the terms
and condition for the continue use of its services. The Act provides for the commission
to look into such matter to eliminate practice having adverse effect on competitor,
protect the interest of consumers and ensure freedom of trade carried on by other
participants in market in India

III. The Criticism

The commission and NGO criticised the updation of privacy policy of Snapup and
sharing of user data with its parent company Facelook. The updation was motivated from
the Snapup side to improve upon the services, show relevant ads and offers across the

8
 Facelook company products. But the main criticism of both CCM and NGO lies on the
ground that for upgrading its user interface sensitive information such as transaction data ,
services related information etc, are shared and no opt out option was given by it and if
the user wanted to delete its account then also its information can be shared.

IV. The First Phase

The first phase of the policy involved agreeing to the new terms and privacy policy which
take effect on March 28,2022. After this date users will need to accept these updates to
continue using Snapup. As a result users will have to mandatorily accept the new terms
and policy of their entirely including the terms with respect to sharing of their data across
all the information categories with other Facelook Companies

V. The Resultant Litigation

Pursuant to the aforesaid factual matrix , the two companies moved the High Court of
Gheli that the competition act 2002 does not give power to CCM to look into the matters
of the entity when there is no abuse of dominant position status and also in matters which
are subject of other organisation commission and that the updation of terms and condition
does not violate IT Act and Fundamental rights of the users.

9
 Unfolding of the events

August 2006 - Launch of Facelook in Myria

December 2008 - Launch of Snapup in Myria

21st June, 2021- Facelook acquired Snapup

10th January, 2022 - Notification by Snapup

28th March, 2022 - New Policy came into effect

19th April, 2022 -CCM took Cognizance of the matter

30th June, 2022 - Order of CCM

5th July, 2022 - Snapup and Facelook approached High Court.

3rd August, 2022 - Carte Blanche approached High Court of Gheli challenging constitutional
validity of Snapup's New Policy

5th November, 2022 - Present Hearing (clubbed matters)

10
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the CCM has jurisdiction to deal with data related matters and Privacy
Concerns of Snapup and Facelook

2. Whether the updated Privacy Policy of Snapup is a prima facie a case of abuse of
dominance under the Competition Act of Myria ?

3. Whether the privacy policy and terms of service are violation of the fundamental right
to privacy as well as provisions of the Information Technology Act of Myria ?

4. Whether the parent company be scrutinized if subsidiary company updating its terms
and condition ?

11
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT THE CCM HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH DATA-RELATED

MATTERS AND PRIVACY CONCERNS OF SNAPUP AND FACELOOK

CCM does not have jurisdiction over violation arising out of Information Technology
Act 2000 (1.1) The CCM is bound by its own order and that judicial discipline
requires the CCM do not intrude into this arena when the highest authority of land is
seized of the matter (1.2) Unless it is established that the applicant has violated any
condition under Section 4 of The Competition Act , 2002 he cannot be subjected to
any scrutiny under the Act (1.3) Without there being a medium of allegation there is
no jurisdiction of CCM to conduct a inquiry.

II. THAT THE UPDATED PRIVACY POLICY OF SNAPUP IS NOT A PRIMA

FACIE A CASE OF ABUSE OF DOMINANCE UNDER THE COMPETITION
ACT OF MYRIA

Updation of privacy policy by the Snapup is not abuse of its dominant position. It is
agreed by the commission in its own report in the case of Vinod Kumar Gupta v.
Whatsapp Inc. 2016. The issue is also well settled in the case of Karmanya Singh
Sareen and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors. 2016 that the users has voluntarily opted
to avail services of the said offered by Snapup. (2.2) Market competitors of Snapup
are zingle, Mearer, Bchat, and Handout. These are also providing the same services as
Snapup and when the company updates its policy users were given the option to
delete their account (2.3) Sharing of data was only for workforce enhancement (2.4)
Messages are still encrypted and which can be decrypted by the users only

III. THAT THE PRIVACY POLICY AND TERMS OF SERVICES ARE NOT IN
VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS WELL AS
PROVISIONS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT OF MYRIA .

It is a well settled issue in Karmanya Singh Sareen and Anr. V. Union of India and
Ors. 2016 that the updation of privacy policy is not violation of privacy policy and the

12
 IT Act of Myria. In the instant case, it is the Supreme Court, which is the constitution
bench also, is seized of the matter pertaining to the 2022 policy (3.1) Report of justice
B.N Krishna Committee on the need to share data and enhances user interface it was
concluded that data sharing is the need of the hour and to improve communication in
the developing world. (3.2) the section in debate is Section 72 of IT act deals with the
penalty on breach of confidentiality and privacy , whereas in the present case the
company put forward to its users each and every detail of information about their
persons and codition. Then it is made clear from my client that it does not wanted to
breach any act or infringe any right of he citizen or users .

IV. THAT THE PARENT COMPANY CANNOT BE SCRUTNIZED IF SUBSIDIARY

COMPANY UPDATING ITS TERMS AND CONDITION

There is no material which clubs the applicant with appeleant herein and that the Applicant
has nothing to do with the activities of Facelook Inc. itself (4.1) The entity has been
incorporated to carry out business in India and abroad, inter alia online support services ,
software development , providing technical support and services and that it is not operating
the social media website and thus has nothing to do with the instant matter.(4.2) Parent
company can be held parallelly liable only on the grounds of its own negligence and on the
basis of vicarious liability as a doctrine of lifting of corporate veil. (4.4) Facelook is a
separate legal entity and vice- a -versa Snapup which means that account really exists , can
sue , or be sued in its own name , holds its own property and is liable of the debts it incurred .

13
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE CCM HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH DATA-RELATED

MATTERS AND PRIVACY CONCERNS OF SNAPUP AND FACELOOK

As per the principle of judicial discipline 1 respondent 1 must exercise restraint and
refrain from issuing the CCM order on the ground that the Supreme Court in Karmanya
Singh Sareen Case2 and this court in Chaitanya Rohilla Case3 and Dr.. Seema Singh case4
are already seized of the issue pertaining to the same subject matter5 .
Snapup provides an end to end encryption service for sending and receiving of messages
to safeguard the privacy of its users.6

[1.1] No abuse of dominat position

The issue has been considered by the court in Karmanya Singh Sareen7 and this court
vide judgement dated 23.09.2016 had upheld the 2016 policy by holding that the users of
Snapup who do not want their information to be shared with Facelook to opt for deletion
of their account 8.

Counsel would like to further rely upon the judgement in Vinod Kumar Gupta case 9
wherein the CCM i.e respondent no.1 has upheld the 2016 policy with the finding that
there had been no abuse of dominant position by the appellant .The court also states that
the ministry of Information Technology is in the process of promulgating a personal Data
protection Bill and the policies of the Appellant would be answerable to the provisions

1
Vinod Kumar Gupta (case no. 99/2016)
2
Karmanya Singh Sareen V. Union of India W.P. (C) 7663/2016

3
Chaitanya Rohilla v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 677 of 2021 ]
4
Dr. Seema Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 1355 of 2021]
5
Role of CCM
6
Competition Commission of Myria v. Bharti Airtel (Manu / SC / 1423 / 2018 )
7
Karmanya Singh Sareen V. Union of India W.P. (C) 7663/2016
8
Competition Commission of India v. State of Mizoram C.A 1797 of 2015
9
Vinod Kumar Gupta (case no. 99/2016)

14
 stipulated in the same, therefore CCM should refrain from adjudicating on this issue
before the bill is promulgated

[1.2] That CCM has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter

The preliminary order makes it clear that the issue before the honourable court and the
issue before respondent 1 are identical and overlapping, as per the principle of judicial
discipline respondent 1 must exercise restraint and refrain from issuing the CCM order on
the ground that Supreme court in Karmanya Sareen case 10 and this court in Chaitanya
Rohilla Case11 are already seized of the issues pertaining to the same subject matter.
Counsel would like to draw the attention of this hon’ble court to para 33 of the impugned
judgement in which the single judge has observed that maybe it would have been prudent
for the respondent 1 to have awaited the outcome of the above referred petition.

[1.3] Powers and Function of CCM

The order of CCM is not merely administrative, as has been held by learned single judge
as the powers of DG are quite drastic. Respondent 1 itself in para 4 of the said order has
refered to a previous case Vinod Kumar Gupta (supra) on the same issue, wherein the
CCM has held that policy does not institute anti competitive practices.

[1.4] Matter why not to be dealt by CCM

The 2022 policy also falls within the purview of IT law framework and that a reading of
the letter dated 18.05.2021 issued by Meity also demonstrates that the issue are
overlapping.

10
Karmanya Singh Sareen V. Union of India W.P. (C) 7663/2016
11
Chaitanya Rohilla v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 677 of 2021 ]

15
 Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel12 rejected the
respondent no.1 attempt to exercise jurisdiction over matters that were being considered
by the sectoral regulation i.e, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) despite the
matter involving competition related issues

[1.5] In glance The Competition Act,2002

The competition act controls three anti-competitive behaviours

(i) Merger and acquisitions (combination)
(ii) Abused of dominant position
(iii) Anti-Competitive agreements

12
Competition Commission of Myria v. Bharti Airtel (Manu / SC / 1423 / 2018 )

16
2. THAT THE UPDATED PRIVACY POLICY IS NOT A PRIMA FACIE A CASE
OF ABUSE OF DOMINANCE UNDER CCM

It is argued in Vinod Kumar Gupta case13 that in Myria a number of other players such as
Apple with imessage, Blackberry with BBin , Samsung with chaton, Google with Google
Hangout and Microsoft with Skype are providing consumer communication apps and are
also active in the provisions of smartphone hardware and operating system

[2.1] Competitors of Snapup

Besides many other consumer communication apps provides such as Zingle, Meaner,
Bchat and Handout are also active in market

[2.2] as per the information available in the public domain globally Snapup is having a
billion montly active users14 and within Myria it is having 160 Million15 monthly active
users.

[2.3] Study by organisation

According to a study of Jana and mCent 16 , 97 percent of the smartphone users in Myria
use a communication app daily and the most popular is Snapup which is installed in 96
percent of devices and has more daily active users that any other communication app in
Myria.
As per the said report Snapup is installed in 2.3 times more devices than none grown
messaging app. Like B chat, citing a study conducted by Global Web Index, the
informant has submitted that 64 percent of mobile users in Myria use Snapup which is the
largest as compared to any mobile messaging app usage17

[2.4] No abuse of dominance position

With regard to the abusive conduct of the Snapup in the relevant market , it is noted that
the informant has alleged that th Snapup is abusing its dominant position in the relevant
market by introducing privacy policy which compels its users to share their data and other

13
Vinod Kumar Gupta (case no. 99/2016)
14
Annual report of internet usage , 2022 by Statista
15
Annual report of internet usage , 2022 by Statista
16
Jana and mCent Report 2017
17
Global Web Index Report

17
 information with Facelook . I nthis regard the Commission observes that the data sharing
term of the privacy policy of Snapup as updated on 21st August 2016 relate to sharing of
users Snapup account information with Facelook to improve the online advertisement and
products experience available on user’s Facelook page.18

[2.5] Option provided by Snapup

It is noted that the Snapup provides the option of opt out to its users regarding the sharing
of account information with Facelook within 30 days of agreeing to the updated terms of
service and privacy policy
Moreover the Snapup has submitted that Facelook family of companies will use such
information for the purpose of improving infrastructure and delievery system ,
understanding how their services can be used , serving system , fighting spam, abuse of
infringement activities.
The commission also finds force in the submission of the Snapup regarding its users
safeguards that all types of Snapup messages including chats, groups chats , images ,
videos . voice messages and files and Snapup calls are protected by end-to-end encryption
so that third parties and Snapup cannot read them and also the message can only be
decrypted by the recipient. Further as stated in the key updates summary of the Snapup,
nothing a user data share on Snapup including his/her messages , photos, and recent info
will be shared on to Facelook or any other apps of Facelook family of companies for any
third party for a second and nothing a user posts on those app will be shared by Snapup
for any third party for a second

[2.6] Option to delete Account

We have taken note of the fact that under the privacy policy of Snapup the users are given
an option to delete their Snapup account at any time in which event the information of the
user would be deleted from the servers of Snapup. We are therefore of the view that it is
always open to the existing users of Snapup who do not want their information to be
shared with Facelook to opt for deletion of account19

18
Policy of Whatsapp Inc.
19
New Policy of Snapup 2022

18
3. THAT THE PRIVACY POLICY AND TERMS OF SERVICE ARE NOT IN
VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS WELL AS
PROVISIONS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT OF MYRIA
Privacy is about respecting individuals and their personal life. Internet privacy is a
sub-category of data privacy and the same can arise in response to information from a
wide range of sources , such as 20
• Healthcare records
• Criminal justice investigation and proceedings
• Financial institution and transaction
• Genetic material
• Privacy breaches
• Residence and geographical records
• User preference using persistent cookies

[3.1] Report on Privacy and its meaning

The report by justice BN SriKrishna Committee 21 shared a belief regarding

the developing world that if Myria is to shape the global digital landscape in
the 21st Century, it must formulate a legal framework such a belief is the
recognition that protection of personal data that can work as a template for the
developing world22

Implicit in it is that the sharing of data in this modern world is the key to empowerment
progress and innovation23

[3.2] Why sharing of data is important

The concept of state in the constitution is based on two planks

20
www.icsi.edu. Supreme court judgement on Privacy
21
Vinod Kumar Gupta (case no. 99/2016)

22
Karmanya Singh Sareen V. Union of India W.P. (C) 7663/2016

23
Privacyinternational.org - What information does Snapup has access to

19
 (i) The state is a facilitation of human progress. Consequently it is commanded by the
constitution in Part IV Directive Principle Of State Policy to serve the common
good.
(ii) The state is prove to access24

[3.3] The Purpose of IT Act

The primary purpose of IT Act was to provide legal status to e-commerce and to punish those
who abuse competitors. Data protection in Myria is enforced by the enforcement of privacy
rights based on the Technology Act Amendment of 2008. To ensure electronic is data
protected the IT Act includes measures ‘Cyber Contravention Sec.43 (a)(h)25 and Cyber
Crimes26 Sec.74

[3.4] Section 72 of IT Act ]

Section 72 of IT act 2000 deals with penealty for breach of confidentiality an privacy27. It
states that save as otherwise provided in this act or any other law for the time being in force,
if any person who in pursuance of any of the powers conferred under this act rules or
regulation made there under has secured access to any electronic record , book , register,
correspondence , information, doc or other material without the consent of the person
concerned discloses such electronic record, and any other material to any other person shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may exten to two years, or with fine which
may extend to one lakh rupees or with both .28

According to this section anything obtained from the user without the consent is punishable
but the Snapup acquires the consent of its users prior to accessing any document or anything
aforementioned in the section.

The only information Snapup has access to at the time of installation of the device are

(i) Your location

(ii) Contact information

24
Legal Service e-journal article
25
Cyber Contravention Section 43 (a) (h)
26
Cyber Crime Section 74
27
www.itgovernance.eu blog gdpr
28
Central Information Commission report on Right to Privacy

20
 (iii) Media stored on the same device

The user gives consent to it by agreeing the terms and condition of the application
even if you use end to end encrypted messaging if you backup your whatsapp
messages to the cloud , they will be accessible to law enforcemeant

[3.5] What is personal data / sensitive data

IT rules defines sensitive personal data information as personal data belonging to the
following subjects

(i) Password
(ii) Biometric data
(iii) The supply of services
(iv) Financial information such as bank accounts , credit card or debit card data

Any other information relevant to these provision that a company received for
processing under the aforementioned section or that the corporation has
maintained or processed in accordance with a legitimate contract.

21
4. THAT THE PARENT COMPANY CANNOT BE SCRUTINIZED OR LIABLE
FOR A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY

1. There is no material which clubs the applicant with the appellant herein that the applicant
has nothing to do with the activities of facelook inc. itself .The entity has been
incorporated to carry out business in myria and abroad , inter alia, online support service
,software development, providing technical support and services and that it is not
operating the social media website and that it has nothing to do with the matter29.

4.1 Grounds for liability

2. It is stated that parent company can may be held parallelly liable with the subsidiary on
the grounds of its own negligence and on basis of vicarious liability . the conclusion of
the search was achieved the evolutionary survey and comparison with foreign case laws.

3. There is a clear demarcation between direct liability of a parent company as a result of

(i ) breach of duty of care

(iii) vicarious liability as a result of lifting of corporate veil30

4. Subsidiary is typically a part of a parent company to provide the parent company with
specific synergies , such as increased tax benefits ,reduced regulation, diversified risk, or
assets in the form of earnings ,equipment, or property. The purchase of an interest in a
subsidiary differs from a merger because the parent company can acquire a counterdling
interest with a smaller investment which in the result case in not shown by the respected
council.31

4.2 Liability of a parent company in respect of foreign countries

5. In the U.S general rule is that parent company generally are not liable for the actions of
it’s subsidiaries unless the plaintiff can proven agency or older ego relationship.32 As a
principle parent company cannot be held liable for the acts of it’s subsidiaries.

29
Facelook v. Competition Commission of India and Ors. W.P. (C) 7663/2016
30
Legal Service India.com/legal/article-4167
31
Investopedia.com/ask/answers/Snapup/subsidiaries.asp
32
Nortonusefulright.com

22
4.3 Organizational Structure Of Parent Company

6. A subsidiary company is entity of which atleast 50% equity controlled by another

company or a limited partnership sometimes refer to as the parent or a holding company.
Subsidiaries operate as a entirely different legal entities from their parent company. 33

7. A parent company may incur liability if it holds itself out as a exercising supervision and
control of it’s subsidiaries, even if in reality, it did not do so. Group policies and
standards act by parent companies to their subsidiaries can never create a duty of care in
circumstances where the parent did not enforce them.34 A subsidiary and a parent
company are recognized as a legal entity. Subsidiary companies will have independence
from the parent company and in many cases are individual brands.

4.4 Separate Legal Entity Means

8. Separate legal entity means that a company really exist, can sue or be sued in it’s own
name, hold it’s own property and is liable of the depths it incurred.

33
Harperjames.co.uk
34
Pretyys.co.uk

23
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issue raised, argument advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
requested that this honourable court may be pleased to adjudge and declare :

1. That the CCM has no jurisdiction to deal with data related matters or privacy concern
of Snapup and Facelook.

2. That the providing updated policy is not a case of abuse of dominance under
Competition Act of Myria.

3. That the providing policy does not violates constitutional provision Article 14 & 19
and primarily Right to Privacy under the Article 21 and nor it is in contravention to
Information Technology Act provisions under Section 43A and Section 72.

4. That the Facelook is not entitled to be investigate or scrutinized by the Competition

commission of Myria

And pass any such order , writ or direction as the Honourable Court deems fit and
proper, for this the Appellant shall duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

24