Not true: WhatsApp says claims of people reserving popular, well-known usernames false

NEW DELHI: WhatsApp has asserted that username reservation relating to well-known public figure names is restricted only to their legitimate account owners, and termed as "false" any claims that people are reserving popular or well-known usernames.

The rebuttal came as part of a set of FAQs released by the Meta-owned messaging platform around its contentious username feature - which is under fire over impersonation and fraud concerns.

"A few more things to keep in mind...People are making false claims about reserving popular or well-known usernames - this isn't true, only the legitimate account owners are able to reserve well-known public-figure names," WhatsApp said in the FAQs.

On Wednesday, the Centre issued a notice to Meta over the planned feature on WhatsApp, citing concerns that it could materially increase online fraud, phishing, digital arrest scams, and impersonation attacks. It directed the platform to pause the feature until consultations on the issue are completed "to the satisfaction of the Government".

India is a key market for WhatsApp, and the go-to messaging platform has over 500 million users here.

Some prominent personalities have taken to X recently to flag concerns after they discovered that most variations of their names were already taken during the ongoing reservation phase.

Former Delhi deputy CM Manish Sisodia put out a post on X expressing his surprise that "almost every variation" of his own name, along with his party, AAP, seemed to have already been reserved.

Others, like MobiKwik CEO Bipin Preet Singh too found that close versions of their names had already been taken during the early window for username reservation.

WhatsApp's proposed username feature has raised a red flag among experts and users, who believe the new offering could trigger a surge in impersonation, spoofing, and financial fraud.

In its notice, the government expressed concern that the WhatsApp username feature may "materially increase" cases of online fraud, phishing, digital arrest scams, and impersonation attacks by enabling bad actors to solicit and message victims. It has asked Meta to explain why action shouldn't be initiated under the IT Act and rules over WhatsApp's new feature that may increase cybercrimes.

The Centre has also reminded Meta that WhatsApp, as a significant social media intermediary, is bound by due diligence obligations under the IT Act and rules.

WhatsApp, in a statement on Wednesday, defended the feature, citing built-in safeguards to prevent scams and impersonations and protect users.

A WhatsApp spokesperson said the ability to use a username is not yet live and will roll out slowly later this year.

"To protect against impersonation, we've held the highest-profile names - think public figures, government entities, celebrities, verified Meta accounts - so they can only ever be claimed by their legitimate owners and lookalike derivatives of known names are held as well," a WhatsApp spokesperson said.

Users still require a phone number to use WhatsApp, Meta said and added that it has built multiple layers of defence against scams into usernames.

"Other users need to know the exact username to message you. We will limit how many new people an account can contact, block repeated attempts to guess someone's username key, and have systems to detect and remove activity showing common impersonation and abuse patterns," the company had said.

WhatsApp will show whether a first-time sender is a new account, contact, mutual group member or from another country before users respond.

"When the feature becomes available, and someone sends a message for the first time via your username, we will show you if they're a new account, if they're your contact, if you have groups in common, and if they're based in a different country, so you can decide whether to respond," WhatsApp had said.

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has, however, expressed concern over the Centre's missive, saying the notice to WhatsApp has no clear basis in law.

"It is an attempt by the executive to decide what a company may build and ship, which no statute permits," the digital rights advocacy group said.

In a social media post, the IFF further wrote: "The notice treats the launch of a lawful feature as a wrong the company must justify. That reverses the ordinary position, especially given the absence of any clear legal power that exists. MeitY does not name any provision that lets it approve a product feature before release or order one withdrawn, because there is none, and the provisions it does cite do not supply that power."