The Competition Tribunal’s three-day pretrial hearings in the Meta–GovChat dominance case clarified how evidence and participation rights will operate ahead of trial. From E‑Discovery standards to disputes over subpoenas and witness statements, the rulings are shaping how South Africa balances Big Tech accountability with fairness. 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. 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.
Read Full Article on Daily Maverick
[paywall]
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. 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.
[/paywall]
