The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has dismissed a significant interim application filed by Meta Platforms Inc., which challenged the territorial jurisdiction of Indian courts to adjudicate a ₹1,000 crore commercial suit initiated by the digital advertising agency Blink Digital (India) Private Limited. In a strongly worded order, Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled that private contractual clauses designating foreign courts cannot override mandatory statutory obligations imposed by Indian law, particularly concerning digital intermediaries operating within the country.

The litigation arises from the abrupt disablement of the plaintiff’s four business manager accounts on 4 August 2026, along with approximately 9,000 associated advertising accounts. Blink Digital contended that these actions, which effectively paralyzed its operations, were arbitrary and violated both the company's established policies and the broader regulatory framework governing digital intermediaries in India. Meta, seeking to move the proceedings to the United States, argued that the parties were contractually bound by "Terms of Service" and "Commercial Terms" which mandated that all disputes be resolved exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court in San Mateo County.

Justice Marne’s decision emphasized that the dispute transcends a mere contractual disagreement. The court highlighted that both parties had repeatedly invoked provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, in their pre-suit correspondence. The ruling underscored that when a digital entity operates at scale within India, it is statutorily compelled to comply with local grievance redressal mechanisms and due diligence requirements. Consequently, the court found that the allegations of statutory breach provided a substantive basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by Indian courts, regardless of any forum-selection clause in a standard-form contract.

Interconnected Liability and Regulatory Obligations

A pivotal factor in the court's reasoning was the failure of Defendant No. 1, Facebook India Online Services Private Limited , to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. During the proceedings, the court noted that Facebook India, which maintains a corporate office within the territorial limits of the Bombay High Court , had not raised any objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. Justice Marne observed, "As of now, there is not a word in writing anywhere in the suit on behalf of defendant No. 1 on the basis of which it can be inferred that defendant No.1 has any objection about maintainability of the suit in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court."

The court further noted that Meta could not unilaterally assert jurisdiction over claims that were inextricably intertwined with the Indian operations of its subsidiary. The evidence presented indicated that both Meta and Facebook India appeared to act in tandem, with personnel from the Mumbai office of Facebook India playing a central role in managing the plaintiff’s accounts and communicating the disputed enforcement actions. The court rejected the argument that the cause of action could be conveniently segmented to isolate the Indian subsidiary from the parent entity's global operations.

"A private contract entered into between the parties regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts and the applicability of a foreign law cannot override statutory provisions of laws in India," the court remarked. "Statutory laws always override private contracts in India and the parties cannot contract out of non-derogable statutes , public policy , or mandatory local laws."

Procedural Barriers to Partial Return of Plaint

In addressing Meta's attempt to force a return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , the court reaffirmed that a civil court cannot maintain a suit in a piecemeal fashion. Because the suit contained claims against both Meta and Facebook India—where the latter clearly fell under the court's jurisdiction—the court held that it was legally impermissible to return the plaint in part. Justice Marne stated that, "If the Court holds that it does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the decision has to be with respect to the suit as a whole, and not in part."

The court also found that the forum-selection clause, if interpreted to exclude all Indian courts from resolving disputes regarding compliance with the Intermediary Rules, would effectively render the statutory protections under Indian law nugatory. It noted that the Californian courts, while competent to apply Californian law, were not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the specific nuances of India’s digital intermediary regulations, especially when such enforcement actions directly impacted local small and medium-sized enterprises.

Ongoing Grievance Redressal and Next Steps

The court’s ruling also touched upon the plaintiff's dual status as both a business partner and a consumer in relation to its personal Facebook and Instagram pages. Even under Meta’s own Terms of Service, provisions exist allowing consumers to seek redress in their home jurisdictions. This further solidified the court's view that the suit was not entirely subject to the California-only jurisdiction clause.

The dismissal of the interim application is not a final determination of the jurisdictional question for the remainder of the trial; the court clarified that this issue could be explored further during evidence-led proceedings. However, for the immediate purpose of the ongoing litigation, the suit will continue to be heard in Mumbai. The court has directed that the pending application for a temporary injunction, which seeks the restoration of the plaintiff's business accounts and assets, be listed for hearing on 2 November 2026. This move ensures that the court will address the core relief sought by Blink Digital while the broader legal battle regarding the platform's compliance with Indian statutory law remains active before the Commercial Division.