Back
CCPA fines ₹10 lakh for misleading anti-drone ads without licence disclosure
The has imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty on , an e-commerce platform, for listing and advertising anti-drone systems and jammers without disclosing the mandatory licensing and . The order, passed by Chief Commissioner Smt. Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Shri Anupam Mishra, found in violation of consumer rights, , and under the .
How restricted equipment ended up on a public platform
The case originated from a inquiry by the CCPA after it noticed that ’s website (www..in) was hosting six products under the "Anti-Drone" category—X-Mini, X-Radar XK2, X-Eye, X-Gun XK4, RF-Patrol XK2, and XGaurd. These devices, described as capable of detecting, jamming, or neutralising drone communications, GPS and video feeds, are classified as restricted wireless transmitting equipment under multiple statutes, including the , the , and the . Their possession and use are strictly limited to authorised government and security agencies, requiring prior approvals from the , , , and the .
The CCPA had previously issued an advisory on cautioning e-commerce platforms against facilitating the sale of wireless jammers. Despite this, ’s listings carried no mention of the or of unauthorised possession, which can include imprisonment up to three years under . The authority issued a on , calling for details on procurement, regulatory approvals, sales records, and third-party vendors.
’s defence: an enquiry-based model that didn’t convince
In its reply, argued that it operates on an enquiry-based model, with no open marketplace retail sale. The listings were intended only for institutional visibility among verified government agencies, and the “Enquire on WhatsApp” button served as a deliberate multi-stage verification mechanism. The company claimed that no sale to any unauthorised private individual had occurred and that it voluntarily suspended the listings upon receiving the notice.
However, the CCPA found that failed to produce any documentary evidence—sales records, enquiry logs, screening protocols, or licences—despite repeated opportunities. An investigation by the CCPA’s Director General (Investigation) revealed that did not respond to two separate notices from the investigation wing, leading to a finding of . The investigation also noted that other drone products on ’s platform were available through an “Add to Cart” option, contradicting the claim of a strictly enquiry-based model.
Advertisement defined broadly: listings alone suffice
Rejecting ’s objections, the CCPA held that the publication of representations through a website constitutes an “advertisement” under , regardless of whether a direct purchase mechanism exists. “The enquiry-based mechanism adopted by does not take the Restricted Product listings outside the of ‘advertisement,’” the order stated, “since the publication of a representation through a website is, by itself, sufficient to attract the definition.”
The authority further noted that the delisting of products occurred only after the , not on ’s own initiative, and that post-notice action does not extinguish liability for the period the listings were live.
MoU with third-party vendor fails to establish compliance
During the hearing, produced a Memorandum of Understanding dated with one Mr. Manish Kumar, who was said to supply anti-drone systems to authorised agencies. The CCPA, however, found the MoU insufficient to demonstrate regulatory compliance. It was not a licence or government authorisation, and could not provide basic particulars of Mr. Manish Kumar—such as GSTIN, place of business, or qualifications—when directed. “The MoU is not itself a licence, certificate, or Government authorisation of any description,” the order noted, adding that the inability to furnish basic details “casts doubt on the MoU’s reliability as evidence of a , verified compliance arrangement.”
Legal analysis: concealment of important information
The CCPA concluded that ’s listings fell within the definition of a under , specifically clauses (iii) and (iv)—conveying an that the products are freely and lawfully procurable, and deliberately . This also constituted an under , as the goods were represented as having characteristics and benefits they did not actually have (i.e., unrestricted availability). Additionally, the platform violated , which prohibit unfair trade practices and require disclosure of importer details for imported goods.
Penalty and directions
Imposing the for a —₹10 lakh—under , the CCPA directed to refrain from listing, hosting, or advertising any anti-drone systems, drone jammers, GPS jammers, or similar wireless jamming equipment unless it: - obtains and prominently displays valid statutory approvals (WPC/DoT equipment type approval, licence, MHA/ authorisation, etc.); - implements a verifiable KYC/end-use authorisation mechanism to restrict access to authenticated government, defence, or law enforcement end-users; and - prominently discloses on each listing the licensing requirement and of unauthorised possession or use.
has been ordered to submit a compliance report within 15 days.
Key Observations
- “The publication of a representation through a website is, by itself, sufficient to attract the definition of advertisement.”
- “The delisting of the Restricted Products occurred only after receipt of the , and not on 's own initiative prior to any regulatory intervention.”
- “The MoU is not itself a licence, certificate, or Government authorisation of any description.”
- “’s listings, by omitting any reference to the mandatory licensing regime while marketing the capability and availability of restricted jamming equipment, fall squarely within .”
The CCPA’s order serves as a strong reminder to e-commerce platforms that listing restricted equipment without adequate disclosures—even on an enquiry-based model—can attract significant penalties under consumer protection law.
