|
Meta Platforms moved the Delhi High Court against an order of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), contending that Facebook Marketplace has been wrongly treated as an e-commerce platform and subjected to regulatory obligations beyond the authority's jurisdiction.
The challenge arises from a January 1 order in which the CCPA held Meta in violation of consumer and IT laws over listings of walkie-talkies on Facebook Marketplace. The authority not only imposed compliance obligations for such listings but also extended directions to cover all products requiring statutory approvals, mandating strict disclosures and regulatory adherence. Meta has argued that the order exceeds the scope of the original inquiry, which was confined to walkie-talkie listings, and imposes sweeping obligations without granting a fair opportunity to respond. It has described the directions as legally untenable and beyond jurisdiction. The company has emphasised that Facebook Marketplace is a free, user-driven platform meant for individuals to list goods in a personal capacity. It does not facilitate payments, delivery, or order processing, nor does it charge commissions or act as an intermediary in transactions, which occur entirely outside the platform. According to Meta, these features clearly distinguish Marketplace from conventional e-commerce entities and place it outside the regulatory framework of the E-Commerce Rules. It warned that the CCPA's interpretation could bring a wide range of digital platforms under similar regulatory burdens, affecting ordinary users. Meta has also challenged the authority's reliance on the Intermediary Guidelines, arguing that the CCPA lacks the power to enforce them and has imposed obligations that are not contemplated under the law. Appearing for Meta, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Arvind Datar submitted that Facebook Marketplace is fundamentally different from platforms like Amazon and Flipkart, describing it as a digital notice board where users independently connect, without the platform facilitating commercial transactions or charging fees. During the hearing, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav questioned why Meta had not approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), observing that the issue appeared to relate to jurisdiction. In response, Rohatgi argued that the case involves a complete lack of jurisdiction rather than a mere procedural error. The Court has allowed Meta to file brief written submissions and will hear further arguments on March 25 on whether the impugned order can be sustained in law. (ANI)
|
