The Delhi High Court on Wednesday provided significant interim relief to Meta Platforms Inc., directing the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) not to take any coercive action against the social media giant regarding “unauthorised” listings on Facebook Marketplace. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the platform must be given a fair opportunity to present its stand before any punitive measures are implemented.
The court’s intervention comes in response to a petition filed by Meta challenging a January 1, 2026, order by the CCPA. That order had imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty on Meta for the alleged unauthorised sale of walkie-talkies and issued broad directives requiring the platform to ensure no products requiring statutory certification are listed without due approvals.
The legal battle centers on the classification of Facebook Marketplace. While the CCPA treats it as an e-commerce entity subject to the Consumer Protection Act and Information Technology Rules, Meta contends it is merely a feature of a social media platform.
Appearing for Meta, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued that Facebook Marketplace is a free service intended for “natural persons” to exchange goods in a personal capacity. He emphasized that Meta does not engage in commercial activity or charge commissions on these transactions, asserting that businesses are technically barred from creating such listings.
“The CCPA acted in excess of its jurisdiction by acting on the untenable premise that Facebook Marketplace was subject to the legal framework for e-commerce,” the petition stated.
Justice Kaurav took issue with the sweeping nature of the CCPA’s mandates. While Meta confirmed it had already blocked walkie-talkie listings to comply with the primary concern, it objected to “omnibus” directions requiring it to monitor all listings for statutory compliance and conduct periodic self-audits.
“The court finds that the petitioner could not be penalised on account of any vague or omnibus directions… Unless the act of the petitioner is clearly in violation of any applicable rules or regulations, the petitioner cannot be penalised,” Justice Kaurav observed.
The judge clarified that the CCPA must provide Meta with a “due opportunity of being heard” before taking any further coercive steps.
Meta also challenged the CCPA’s authority to invoke Information Technology (IT) Rules, arguing that such matters fall under the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), not consumer protection regulators. Furthermore, the company argued that the requirement for periodic self-audits and public certification was “difficult to comply with.”
The High Court has granted Meta the liberty to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to formally contest the CCPA’s jurisdiction and the levy of the penalty.
The CCPA had originally taken suo motu cognisance of illegal walkie-talkie sales across various platforms, identifying over 16,970 non-compliant listings and issuing notices to major players including Amazon, Flipkart, and JioMart.
