Illustrative image: Mobile phone. (Photo: iStock) GovChat (#Let’sTalk) application. (Photo: GovChat website) 
The latest interlocutory hearing at the Competition Tribunal of South Africa in the long‑running clash between GovChat — and its subsidiary #LetsTalk — and tech giant Meta (owner of WhatsApp and Facebook) ended with a clear directive: Meta must lay bare a far more detailed and transparent search protocol, or risk undermining its defence.
GovChat, launched in 2018, built a civic‑tech platform using WhatsApp’s Business API (application programming interface) to let South Africans report municipal service breakdowns, apply for social support grants, or liaise with government departments.
During the Covid‑19 pandemic, it was used to manage high volumes of grant applications and citizen queries. According to data submitted to the tribunal, GovChat once claimed to serve up to 13 million South Africans.
In July 2020, WhatsApp — unhappy with how GovChat used the API — signalled its intention to off‑board GovChat and #LetsTalk, citing alleged violations of its data and user‑protection policies. The reaction was swift: GovChat lodged a complaint with the Competition Commission of South Africa, which, in March 2022, formally referred Meta, WhatsApp and Facebook SA to the Competition Tribunal on charges of “exclusionary conduct” in breach of the national competition law.
The Competition Commission argued that removing GovChat would entrench WhatsApp’s dominance, block a viable competitor and stifle innovation in digital civic services. Among the remedies it requested were:
- A court interdict to stop the proposed off‑boarding;
- The voiding of restrictive business API terms; and
- A fine of up to 10% of Meta’s local turnover.
Because the case remains at the interlocutory stage — that is, focused on procedure, not substance — this week’s hearing on e‑discovery and disclosure was crucial. Its outcome will shape whether GovChat/#LetsTalk can access the evidence they need for the substantive hearing.
Human‑led transparency demanded
The hearing did not reject modern search technology such as Technology Assisted Review (TAR). Instead, the Competition Tribunal zeroed in on who defined the search universe, how custodians were selected and whether the process was properly documented.
Meta’s legal representative defended the company’s approach. But when Competition Tribunal member Geoff Budlender asked who had identified the 39 data custodians listed in Meta’s submissions, the response was vague.
Budlender pressed: “Who determined those 39 custodians? And how did that person determine them?”
Tribunal member Imraan Valodia added that even when automated tools were used, human judgment — governed by clear, verifiable rules — must anchor the process.
Eventually, Meta’s team conceded the shortcoming. They agreed to submit a full affidavit to explain the entire e‑discovery methodology:
- Who chose custodians;
- What keywords or themes were used; and
- How documents were tagged, filtered or excluded.
GovChat pushes back
On behalf of GovChat/#LetsTalk, senior counsel Paul Farlam pressed the point that without a full disclosure of methodology — search terms, custodians, repositories, filtering rules and potential manual checks — there was no reliable way to confirm whether all the relevant documents had been produced. When man and machine combined, he said, “the process must contain appropriate checks and balances which render each stage capable of independent verification”.
Ruling and the road ahead
The Competition Tribunal adjourned the application, but outlined a clear roadmap.
Meta must submit a comprehensive affidavit detailing its e‑discovery protocol and collaborate with GovChat on “bespoke searches” for roughly 23 documents still in dispute.
Crucially, the court made clear that it did not intend to order a wholesale re‑search of Meta’s entire data store — a move that would probably delay the full hearing. Instead, both parties were instructed to agree on a narrow, transparent and verifiable disclosure process.
The tribunal also indicated that while the e-discovery ruling itself remained pending, it would reconvene on Tuesday, 2 December, at 10am to continue with other interlocutory applications, including the summons application. Meta’s portion may conclude before the afternoon, after which the next item on the agenda will proceed.
Why this matters — and what comes next
This isn’t just a procedural skirmish. The ruling marks a turning point in how South African competition law may treat evidence from data‑rich global platforms.
For Meta and similar firms operating in SA, it raises the bar: automated disclosure without documented human oversight is unlikely to suffice in future dominance challenges.
For civic‑tech platforms — and by extension the millions of citizens who rely on them — it reinforces the principle that access to public digital services should not be at the mercy of opaque algorithms or corporate discretion.
Once Meta submits its affidavit and parties negotiate bespoke searches, the Competition Tribunal will determine what evidence can be admitted.
That outcome is likely to shape not only the fate of GovChat, but also the rules of engagement for all digital public‑service tools in South Africa. DM