Delhi High Court Lets Meta Approach NCDRC Against ₹10 Lakh Penalty In Walkie-Talkie Listings Case

A single-judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav gave Meta liberty to challenge the order before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

The penalty stemmed from a suo motu case initiated by the CCPA, which found that Meta had permitted listings of walkie talkies without mandatory disclosures regarding licensing requirements, frequency range and Equipment Type Approval (ETA) certification. The products regulated under the Indian Telegraph Act were listed without clarity on whether they required licences, misleading consumers into believing they were freely usable.

A show cause notice was issued on May 2, 2025, seeking details of sellers, product specifications. Meta claimed it acted as an intermediary and removed 39 of 40 flagged listings, while also providing limited user data.

The investigation report of August 18, 2025 found continued non-compliance, noting that hundreds of similar listings persisted without disclosures and that Meta failed to exercise due diligence under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules.

During proceedings in the Delhi High Court, Meta sought permission to withdraw its challenge to audit and penalty directions with liberty to agitate the issues before the NCDRC. The court allowed the request and granted two weeks to file an appeal.

Meta also informed the court that it had already complied with directions relating to walkie-talkies and had stopped their listing on its platform.

The court examined CCPA's direction requiring compliance for all products needing statutory approval and observed that such omnibus directions appeared vague and susceptible to misuse.

The court observed:

“The Court finds that there is a possibility of the part directions contained in para. 43(b) to be construed as being an ex-ante adjudication qua the listing of any/all products on the petitioner‟s marketplace. Ex facie, the said directions appear to be vague, omnibus and susceptible to abuse.”

While clarifying that court's direction would not amount to a blanket adjudication for all products and that Meta would be entitled to a fair hearing in any future proceedings, the court said:

“The said directions are, therefore, clarified to the effect that they are not to be construed as an adjudication being made with respect to any/all other products listed/to be listed on the Facebook Marketplace. If any adverse consequences are to befall upon the petitioner in connection with an inquiry/investigation, which is not the subject matter of the Impugned Order, the petitioner is, similar to any other person in this Country, entitled to a fair hearing in accordance with the applicable law.”

The writ petition was accordingly disposed.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Arvind P. Datar, Vivek Reddy, with Advocates Swati Agrawal, Shashank Mishra, Akshi Rastogi, Vedika Rathore, Jyotsna Punshi, Rahul Sethia, Pival Peddireddi, i/b Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co

For Respondents: Chetan Sharma, ASG with Abhishek Gupta, CGSC, Dhananjay Singh, Kumar, Chanakya