WhatsApp stated that claims suggesting users can reserve popular or well-known names are false. The platform emphasized that reserving the names of famous public figures is exclusively available to the legal owners of those accounts.
Context of the username issue
This statement was made as part of a series of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) published by Meta, the company that owns the WhatsApp messenger. This username feature has sparked controversy due to concerns related to fraud and impersonation.
Indian regulator's reaction
On Wednesday, the Centre in India sent a notification to Meta regarding the planned feature in WhatsApp. The notification expressed concerns that this feature could significantly increase online fraud, phishing, digital arrest schemes, and identity impersonation attacks. The regulator demanded a halt to the implementation of this feature until consultations on the matter are completed and satisfy the Government.
India is a key market for WhatsApp, where over 500 million users utilize the messenger. Some notable personalities recently used the X platform to voice concern after discovering that most variations of their names had already been taken during the current username reservation phase.
Examples of user concern
Former Deputy Minister for Delhi Affairs Manish Sisodia posted on X, expressing surprise that 'almost every variation' of his name and his party AAP seemed to have already been reserved. Others, such as MobiKwik CEO Bipinpreet Singh, also found that close versions of their names were occupied during the early period of username reservation.
WhatsApp's stance on user protection
Experts and users believe that the new WhatsApp username feature could trigger a surge in fraud, spoofing, and financial scams. In its notification, the government expressed concern that the feature could 'significantly increase' cases of online fraud, phishing, digital arrest schemes, and identity impersonation attacks, allowing malicious actors to attract and communicate with victims. It required Meta to explain why it should not take action under the Information Technology Act and rules concerning the new WhatsApp feature that could facilitate cybercrime.
The Centre also reminded Meta that WhatsApp, as a significant social networking intermediary, is obligated to comply with due diligence requirements under the Information Technology Act and rules. In response, WhatsApp issued a statement on Wednesday defending the feature, citing built-in anti-fraud and anti-impersonation mechanisms designed to protect users.
How the feature works
A WhatsApp representative stated that the ability to use a username is not yet activated and will be gradually rolled out later this year. He clarified: 'To prevent impersonation, we have reserved the most famous names—such as public figures, government institutions, celebrities, verified Meta accounts—so that only legal owners can claim them, and similar derivatives of famous names have also been reserved.' Meta added that users still need a phone number to use WhatsApp, and that the company has implemented multiple layers of anti-fraud protection in the username system.
The company also reported that 'other users need to know the exact username to message you. We will limit the number of new people an account can contact, block repeated attempts to guess the username key, and create systems to detect and remove activity showing common patterns of impersonation and abuse.' WhatsApp will display whether the sender is a new account, a contact, a group member, or from another country before users reply.
Position of advocacy groups
However, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) expressed concern over the Centre's letter, stating that WhatsApp's notification lacks a clear legal basis. This digital rights group noted: 'This is an attempt by the executive branch to decide what a company can create and release, which no law permits.' IFF also wrote on social media: 'The notification treats the launch of a legitimate feature as a mistake that the company must justify. This changes the usual position, especially given the lack of any clear legal force. MeitY does not cite any provisions that would allow it to approve a product feature before release or demand its withdrawal, because there are none, and the provisions cited do not grant such authority.'