Bombay High Court Rejects Meta's Plea To Return Blink Digital's ₹1,000 Crore Suit

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected Meta Platforms Inc.'s plea to return a ₹1,000 crore commercial suit filed by digital advertising agency Blink Digital (India) Private Limited over the disabling of its business accounts.

The court held that Meta had failed to establish that the Bombay High Court totally lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that the suit raised allegations of violations of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Intermediary Rules, which courts in California could not decide.

“Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the view that Defendant No.2-Meta has failed to demonstrate that this Court totally lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Defendant No. 1 has not raised the objection of jurisdiction. So far as the allegations of violation of provisions of the IT Act and the Intermediary Rules are concerned, the Courts in California cannot decide the said issues, even assuming that the contractual arrangement of jurisdiction of foreign courts and applicability of foreign law is enforceable. The judgments of Madras High Court prima facie indicate that the jurisdiction of this Court would not be ousted,” the court held.

Blink Digital provides digital advertising, media planning and buying, creative and marketing communication services to corporate clients across India and abroad. It manages digital advertising campaigns on various platforms, including those operated by Meta.

On August 4, 2026, Meta and Facebook India Online Services Private Limited disabled four of Blink Digital's Business Manager accounts, affecting around 9,000 advertising accounts and other business assets linked to them.

Blink Digital approached the court seeking restoration of its Business Manager accounts, advertising accounts, Facebook pages and Instagram accounts. It also sought ₹1,000 crore in damages, alleging that the disabling of its accounts was unlawful.

Meta argued that the dispute had to be heard in California under the parties' contractual terms. Blink Digital opposed the plea, relying on the agreements governing Indian advertisers and arguing that the dispute also involved statutory obligations under Indian law.

The court examined the Country-Specific Ads Terms, which provide that the Self-Serve Ad Terms for Indian advertisers are between the advertiser and Facebook India. References to “us”, “we” and “our” in the Self-Serve Ad Terms are treated as references to Facebook India for the relevant advertising orders.

The court observed, “Thus, Clause 9 of the Country Specific Ads Terms clearly indicates that Self-Serve Ad Terms is a contract between Indian Advertiser and Facebook India. It has specifically agreed in Country- Specific Ads Terms that any reference to the words 'us', 'we' and 'our' in the Self-Serve Ad Terms is deemed to be a reference to Facebook India.”

Meta had also relied on the Intermediary Rules in its correspondence with Blink Digital, alleging that the company's activities violated Rules 3(1)(b)(v) and 3(1)(b)(vi).

The court observed that whether the companies were required to comply with the relevant provisions and whether disabling the accounts violated Indian law would have to be examined during the trial.

The court also noted that Blink Digital had sought restoration of its own Facebook and Instagram pages. It held that this claim could be pursued against Meta under Clause 4.4 of the Terms of Service, which allows consumers to bring claims before competent courts in their country.

The court rejected Meta's plea but clarified that territorial jurisdiction could be examined independently during the trial. It also held that the plaint could not be returned in part while the suit continued against Facebook India.

The court directed that Blink Digital's application seeking interim relief be listed on November 2, 2026, at 4 pm.

For Plaintiff: Kunal Dwarkadas with Siddharth Joshi, Aniket Kharote, Naval Sharma, Nabeel Malik, Nikita Sharma, Sarthak Sharma & Akhila D.V. i/b Tuli & Co.

For Defendants: Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Ameya Gokhale, Ritish Desai, Amee Rana, Radhika Roy, Harit Lakhani, Tanvi Raina & Abhishek Mookherjee, Rishabh Jaisani i/b Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas