WhatsApp has dismissed claims that users are reserving popular or well-known usernames, clarifying that only legitimate owners of public figure names can claim them. The clarification comes as the Meta-owned messaging platform faces government scrutiny over its upcoming username feature amid concerns over impersonation, phishing and online fraud.

The company issued the clarification through a set of FAQs on its proposed username feature, which has sparked debate over potential misuse by fraudsters.

"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.

The clarification follows the Centre's notice to Meta on Wednesday, asking the company to pause the rollout of the feature until consultations are completed "to the satisfaction of the Government". The government warned that the feature could materially increase cases of online fraud, phishing, digital arrest scams and impersonation attacks.

India is WhatsApp's largest market, with more than 500 million users.

The concerns intensified after several prominent personalities claimed that different versions of their names had already been reserved during the ongoing reservation phase.

Delhi former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia said on X that "almost every variation" of his name, along with his party AAP's name, appeared to have already been reserved.

MobiKwik CEO Bipin Preet Singh also said that usernames closely resembling his name had already been taken.

The proposed username feature has prompted cybersecurity experts and users to warn that it could lead to an increase in impersonation, spoofing and financial fraud.

In its notice, the government said the feature may "materially increase" online fraud, phishing, digital arrest scams and impersonation attacks by enabling bad actors to contact potential victims. It has also asked Meta to explain why action should not be initiated under the IT Act and related rules over the proposed feature.

The Centre further reminded Meta that WhatsApp, as a significant social media intermediary, is required to comply with due diligence obligations under the IT Act and associated rules.

Responding to the concerns, WhatsApp reiterated that the username feature has not yet been launched and will be rolled out gradually 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.

The company also stressed that users will still need a phone number to use WhatsApp and said multiple safeguards have been built into the username system.

"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 added that users will receive additional context before responding to first-time messages sent through usernames.

"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.

Meanwhile, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) questioned the legal basis of the government's notice, arguing that existing laws do not empower the Centre to block or pre-approve the launch of a product feature.

"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 another social media post, the IFF added: "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."