NEW DELHI— Meta Platforms Inc. moved the Delhi High Court on Wednesday to challenge an order by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) that imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty on the tech giant. The penalty stems from the alleged unauthorized listing and sale of walkie-talkies on Facebook Marketplace.
Appearing for Meta, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the CCPA lacks jurisdiction because Facebook Marketplace is fundamentally different from e-commerce giants like Amazon or Flipkart.
The “Notice Board” Defense
Meta’s primary argument hinges on the definition of its platform. The company claims it is an intermediary “notice board” rather than a commercial shop.
-
No Commercial Transactions: Meta argued that it does not provide a mechanism for buying or selling, nor does it charge any commission or consideration from users.
-
Personal Exchanges Only: The petition stated that Marketplace is a free service designed exclusively for “natural persons” to exchange goods in a personal capacity, and that businesses are technically not allowed to create listings.
-
The Analogy: “We are not providing a virtual Khan Market,” Rohatgi submitted to the court. “This is a notice board… the platform doesn’t charge anything. [Users] will have to contact [each other] directly.”
The CCPA’s Findings
The CCPA’s original order, passed on January 1, 2026, held that Meta violated the Consumer Protection Act and Information Technology Rules by permitting walkie-talkie listings—products that require specific statutory approvals and certifications—without mandatory disclosures.
The authority had previously identified over 16,970 non-compliant walkie-talkie listings across 13 platforms, including Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, and JioMart, as part of a suo motu crackdown on illegal electronic sales.
Court’s Observations and Next Steps
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while listing the matter for a follow-up hearing on March 25, 2026, raised two significant questions for Meta:
-
Jurisdiction: How can the CCPA’s order be termed “without jurisdiction” if the platform hosts repeated listings of regulated goods?
-
Alternative Remedy: Why should the High Court intervene when the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) could potentially consider the issue?
Meta contends that if the CCPA’s interpretation holds, every digital platform—including online newspapers and community forums where users post items for sale—would suddenly be burdened with the regulatory compliance meant for massive e-commerce entities.
