Downloads:
The Delhi High Court has allowed Meta Platforms to withdraw its petition challenging a Rs 10 lakh penalty imposed by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) for alleged misleading advertisements and unlawful listings of walkie-talkies on its Facebook Marketplace platform. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav permitted Meta to contest the fine and self-audit directions issued by the CCPA before the appellate forum, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
What Meta told the Delhi HC: During the course of arguments, Meta told the Delhi HC that it wished to withdraw its challenge to two specific directions — the Rs 10 lakh penalty under para 43(a) and the self-audit mandate under para 43(c) — and sought liberty to challenge them before the NCDRC.
Along with this, Meta sought to agitate the broader issue of whether the Consumer Protection Act 2019, Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020, and the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements 2022 were even applicable to it in the first place. The court permitted Meta to approach the NCDRC and file an appeal within two weeks from March 25.
The Facebook owner also told the Delhi HC that it had already complied with the directions concerning walkie-talkies and had stopped listing them on its platform.
“Facebook Marketplace is not permitting the listing, advertising, and hosting of walkie-talkies on its platform,” said Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, who was representing Meta in the case.
However, Meta sought the court’s intervention on a part of the direction in para 43 (b), which required the company to ensure that “any product” requiring statutory approval or certification is not listed on its platform without full compliance with applicable laws and mandatory disclosure. The direction covered drones and GPS devices, not just walkie-talkies.
“The aforenoted direction, owing to their omnibus nature are incapable of being complied with, and severely prejudice our rights. It would serve as an overbroad continuous order covering all products listed/to be listed on the Facebook Marketplace,” said Meta.
Essentially, the company contended that it could not be held perpetually liable across its entire marketplace based on a regulatory finding that pertained solely to walkie-talkies.
On the other hand, the CCPA argued that the directions contained in para 43(b) are fully justifiable, that it is empowered to issue such directions, and asked Meta to challenge even this portion before the NCDRC.
Delhi HC verdict on CCPA directions: The Delhi HC examined the CCPA’s direction requiring full compliance for all products needing statutory approval and held that such omnibus directions appeared “vague” and “susceptible to abuse”.
“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…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
