1 hour ago
5
ARTICLE AD BOX
Meta Platforms assailed in the Delhi High Court today (Wednesday, March 18) a Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) order imposing a Rs 10 lakh penalty on the company for alleged unauthorised sale and listing of walkie-talkies on the Facebook Marketplace.
Appearing for Meta, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Arvind Datar submitted that Facebook Marketplace is fundamentally different from platforms like Amazon and Flipkart, describing it as a digital notice board where users independently connect, without the platform facilitating commercial transactions or charging fees. Rohatgi argued in the court that Facebook neither provides a mechanism for sale and purchase nor does it charge any commission from the users.
"We are not providing a virtual Khan Market. This is a notice board meant only for Facebook users. We are not a shop. No commercial sales are allowed. No consideration is charged. We don't charge anybody.," he said. Explaining further, the counsel said, "It is a facility of a digital notice board meant for sale... Mr Rohatgi has a phone to sell; someone wants to buy. The platform doesn't charge anything or provide any mechanism to buy or sell.
Mr Rohatgi will have to contact him." According to a report by news agency PTI, in its bid to set aside the order, the Meta petition claimed that the CCPA acted in excess of its jurisdiction by acting on the "untenable" premise that Facebook Marketplace was subject to and governed by the legal framework for e-commerce. The petition also claimed the CCPA passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice."To circumvent the plain language of the E-Commerce Rules and clear statutory frameworks, the Authority adopts a strained interpretation under which any digital platform that hosts repeated listings of regulated goods is brought within the E-Commerce Rules.
This approach renders the exclusion illusory and would extend the Rules to virtually every digital platform, including online newspapers and community forums, that allow users to post listings of everyday consumer items like toys, footwear and water bottles, all of which are regulated goods," the petition said.
"The resulting burden would fall squarely on natural persons selling goods in a personal capacity, as ordinary household items would suddenly trigger regulatory compliance.
Such an outcome is plainly inconsistent with both the text and purpose of the E-Commerce Rules," it added. Meta's plea claims that the CCPA compounded its jurisdictional excess by ruling that it violated the intermediary guidelines, which fall within the purview of the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
What is CCPA's complaint against Meta
In its January 1 order, the CCPA directed Meta to ensure that no walkie-talkies or any other product requiring statutory approval/certification is listed, hosted, advertised or sold on its platform without full compliance with applicable laws and mandatory disclosures.
CCPA also asked Meta to periodically undertake a self-audit to check deceptive listings and publish a certificate of such self-audit on its website in the public and consumer interest.
Not just Meta, CCPA took suo motu cognisance of the "large-scale illegal listing and sale of walkie-talkies (Personal Mobile Radios) on e-commerce platforms" and imposed monetary penalties on several online marketplaces.
What Delhi HC judge said in response
The judge asked Meta why the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot consider the issue. During the hearing, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav listed Meta's petition for hearing on March 25, asking it to explain how the order can be termed "without jurisdiction". The judge also asked the petitioner why the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot consider the issue.
English (US) ·