WhatsApp Username Feature: Meta Team Holds Urgent Talks With IT Ministry

Government halts the rollout of the new identity-masking feature in India, citing severe risks of impersonation and financial fraud.

A high-level team from Meta visited the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on Friday, responding to a government summons that has effectively put the brakes on one of WhatsApp’s most significant privacy updates. The meeting, which lasted several hours, served as the initial point of contact after the Centre issued a formal notice earlier this week, demanding a detailed explanation on how the platform intends to prevent the misuse of its proposed "username" feature.

The government has been clear: the feature—which allows users to interact using unique handles rather than mobile numbers—is not to be launched in India until a comprehensive consultation process is completed to its satisfaction. While Meta has framed the update as a privacy-centric move to help users protect their phone numbers, officials are unconvinced, fearing it will open a new, opaque channel for cybercriminals to thrive.

A Growing Shadow Over Digital Safety

At the heart of the government's concern is the potential for mass impersonation. By moving away from the phone-number-linked identity, regulators worry that bad actors could easily mimic public figures, government agencies, and financial institutions. This isn't just about social media annoyance; it is about the "digital arrest" scams and phishing attacks that have already become a plague on the Indian internet.

Because WhatsApp is now deeply integrated with payment services like UPI, the stakes are far higher than they were a few years ago. Law enforcement agencies have flagged that anonymous, username-based accounts could make it significantly harder to trace the origin of fraud, effectively creating a "cloak" for scammers to operate within the country’s most popular messaging app.

The Three-Day Deadline

Meta is now under pressure to provide a robust technical justification. The company has been given a three-day window to submit a formal response, detailing the specific safeguards they intend to implement to prevent the "material increase" in cybercrime that the IT Ministry fears.

While the company has indicated that they have reserved certain high-profile handles for celebrities and government entities to prevent squatting, officials are looking for more than just policy promises. They are examining whether Meta’s due diligence obligations under the IT Act are being met, and whether the platform's architecture can truly distinguish between a legitimate user and a sophisticated imposter.

Why It Matters: The Bigger Picture

This standoff is a reality check for Big Tech in India. The government’s intervention signals a shift from a "wait and see" approach to an active, regulatory gatekeeping model, especially when it comes to financial and security risks. For Meta, the challenge is balancing global feature rollouts with the unique, high-stakes requirements of its largest market—India’s 500 million-plus user base.

If the government finds the response inadequate, it has the legal muscle—including provisions under Section 69A of the IT Act—to block services if public safety is at risk. For now, the "username" feature remains in limbo, serving as a reminder that in the current Indian digital landscape, national security and consumer protection will always take precedence over global product roadmaps.