Illustrative image | Mobile phone with social media applications of Whatsapp. (Photo: iStock) | GovChat (#Let’sTalk) application. (Photo: GovChat website) 
The Competition Tribunal has issued rulings following three days of pre-trial hearings held from 1 to 3 December 2025 in the dominance case involving Meta Platforms, WhatsApp, Facebook South Africa and the civic tech platform GovChat/#LetsTalk.
GovChat is a citizen engagement platform built on WhatsApp technology that worked extensively with government departments, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic, providing notifications and public service interactions to millions of users.
The hearings arose after Meta threatened to “off-board” GovChat and #LetsTalk from WhatsApp, prompting GovChat to seek interim relief. The Competition Tribunal’s role was to resolve procedural disputes before the main trial, including questions of discovery, witness statements and whether intervening parties like GovChat could argue matters that touch on the case’s merits.
While procedural, the hearings were significant: the Competition Tribunal had to decide not only what evidence must be produced, but who may rely on it, and how far an intervening party can go in arguing remedies — actions the tribunal could order if a law was broken — before the main trial begins.
Setting the stage: Days 1 and 2
On 1 December, the first day focused on Meta’s obligations for electronic evidence collection, also known as E-Discovery — the process where parties share documents and data relevant to the case. The tribunal required Meta to show that searches were not just automated, but also supervised by humans. Custodians had to be identifiable, search terms documented and filtering steps explained, ensuring transparency and accountability.
The following day, the focus shifted to GovChat/#LetsTalk. The company described itself as a “dormant shell”, with some data destroyed over time, limiting its ability to respond fully to Meta’s requests. Meta also challenged a subpoena issued to Bradley Jonathan Sacks, a shareholder in GovChat, requiring him to provide documents and information.
By the end of the second day, the Competition Tribunal had outlined what evidence should exist. The remaining question: which evidence could be used at trial, and by whom?
Read more: Meta pushes for clarity as GovChat claims dormant shell status
Day 3: Where remedies meet merits
On 3 December, the hearings tackled whether GovChat/#LetsTalk could introduce evidence touching on the merits of the case — whether Meta’s conduct actually broke the law — while its participation was formally limited to remedies.
Meta applied to strike out portions of statements from two witnesses, Sacks and a Ms Haslam, which discussed market dominance, anti-competitive conduct, and exclusionary effects. A strike-out is a legal request to remove evidence from consideration before trial, narrowing what can be relied on.
Meta argued that GovChat/#LetsTalk was “running a parallel case,” overstepping its role by presenting material the Competition Commission should control. The commission investigates and prosecutes breaches of competition law, including whether a company is dominant — having enough market power to ignore competitors or control a market.
GovChat/#LetsTalk responded that this separation was artificial. Senior counsel Paul Farlam SC said proving entitlement to remedies required evidence that Meta had contravened the law. Without a declaration of contravention — a formal finding that Meta broke the law — the company could not pursue damages. In South African law, the tribunal establishes whether the law was broken, and the “victim” (here, GovChat) would then take that certificate to a high court to claim financial compensation.
“Presenting evidence of the contravention is not optional — it is legally necessary,” Farlam told the Competition Tribunal. He added that striking the evidence now would be premature; questions about relevance and admissibility are best resolved during the main hearing.
The Competition Commission backed GovChat/#LetsTalk. Senior counsel Layne Quilliam argued that removing evidence at this stage would force duplicative work, requiring the commission to re-file statements or reconstruct evidence through questioning — delaying proceedings unnecessarily.
The tribunal’s ruling
In its press release on 22 December, the tribunal issued its rulings on the pre-trial applications. It ordered Meta to provide further disclosure to GovChat/#LetsTalk, while dismissing Meta’s request to compel additional discovery from GovChat/#LetsTalk.
The tribunal also dismissed Sacks’ application to set aside the subpoena, meaning he must produce the requested documents. Its decision on Meta’s strike-out application is still pending.
These rulings clarify the framework for the main trial: what evidence exists, who may rely on it and the boundaries of participation for intervening parties.
Why it matters
Across three days, the Competition Tribunal actively shaped the rules of engagement. Day 1 enforced transparency for Meta. Day 2 assessed GovChat/#LetsTalk’s capacity to comply, balancing fairness with practicality. Day 3 tackled the conceptual limits of what interveners may argue when seeking remedies.
The hearings have real-world implications. They determine how far smaller civic tech platforms can defend their access to essential digital services and pursue damages, while reminding dominant tech companies like Meta that accountability and transparency are mandatory.
What happens next?
The Competition Tribunal still needs to decide on Meta’s strike-out application, which will determine whether GovChat/#LetsTalk can use its own evidence to argue that Meta holds a dominant position. Once these rules are clear, the main trial will examine whether Meta broke the law and, if so, what remedies apply. Penalties could include fines of up to 10% of turnover, alongside orders ensuring continued access to critical civic tech services.
As the matter moves toward the main hearing, the Competition Tribunal’s decisions will not only set the evidence Meta must address but also establish a precedent for handling disputes over dominance and digital public services in South Africa — balancing fairness, efficiency and public interest. DM