No coercive action against Meta platforms without hearing: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) not to take any coercive action against Meta Platforms Inc over any unauthorised listing on Facebook Marketplace without giving the US-based social media giant an opportunity to present its stand.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while dealing with Meta’s petition against a CCPA order imposing a Rs 10 lakh penalty on it for alleged unauthorised sale and listing of walkie-talkies on the Facebook Marketplace, said the platform cannot be penalised by giving “vague and omnibus” directions.
The senior counsel for Meta said that in compliance with the order, the platform was not permitting any listings for walkie-talkies on the marketplace but objected to the other “omnibus” directions to it, including ensuring that no other product requiring statutory approval/ certification was listed or sold without due approvals.
The counsel for the Centre defended the order and submitted that the CCPA was legally empowered to pass the directions.
“The court, however, finds that the petitioner could not be penalised on account of any vague or omnibus directions which seem to have been issued in paragraph 43(b) (of the order). Unless the act of the petitioner is clearly in violation of any applicable rules or regulations, the petitioner cannot be penalised,” said Justice Kaurav.
“It would mean that before taking any coercive step or any other action, the petitioner would be given due opportunity (of being heard). Paragraph 43(b) stands clarified,” the judge stated.
The court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) with its grievance that the CCPA lacks jurisdiction over it because it is not an e-commerce platform.
The petitioner is granted liberty to raise the issue before the NCDRC by filing an appeal, the court said.
Meta’s senior counsel sought liberty from the court to raise objections against the levy of penalty and directions for self-audit before the NCDRC.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, argued that Facebook was a social media platform and Facebook Marketplace was merely a feature to facilitate users to sell their products.
Datar said it was not undertaking any commercial activity and Facebook did not charge any commission for it.
He also objected to the CCPA invoking the Information Technology Rules in its order, saying it has no authority in that domain.
The senior lawyer further said the CCPA’s direction to Meta to undertake periodic self-audits to check deceptive listings was difficult to comply with.
Meta had approached the High Court on March 18, when the court asked it to explain why the NCDRC could not consider the issue.
In its order passed on January 1, 2026, the CCPA held that Meta violated the Consumer Protection Act and its rules and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules by allegedly permitting walkie-talkie listings on Facebook Marketplace without mandatory disclosures.
In its petition, Meta said Facebook Marketplace is a free service designed exclusively for natural persons to sell or exchange goods in a personal capacity, and businesses and commercial sellers are not allowed to create listings.
Seeking to set aside the order, the 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.
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 (MeitY), the plea said.
In its January 1 order, the CCPA also 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.
It 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.
Earlier, the 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.
It identified more than 16,970 non-compliant walkie-talkie listings across platforms and issued notices to 13 e-commerce entities, including Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, JioMart and Meta.
