JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 01.01.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (‘CCPA’) under the purported exercise of its power vested under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“Act”). The gravamen of the dispute seems to originate from the CCPA taking suo moto cognizance of listings of walkie-talkies, which is a product governed by the Use of Low Power and Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018 on the petitioner’s (“Facebook Marketplace”) platform.

2. In relation thereto, a Show Cause Notice dated 02.05.2025 was issued by the CCPA to the petitioner, and in furtherance of it, various written representations/submissions, and personal hearings were conducted. Ultimately, the Impugned Order came to be passed in which it was concluded that Facebook Marketplace has violated, inter alia, Sections 2(28)(i)-(iv), 2(47) of the Act, Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 (“E-Commerce Rules”) and the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 (“Guidelines”)., (Para. 40(c) of the Impugned Order.)

3. In light of the aforenoted violations, the CCPA issued the following directions in exercise of its powers under Section 20 and 21 read with Section 10 of the Act:

“43. In view of the above, under Section- 20, 21 read with Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, CCPA hereby issues the following directions:-

a) In light of the nature of the violations detailed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is necessary that the opposite party is directed to Pay a penalty of ₹10,00,000/- for indulging in misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice.

b) The opposite party shall ensure that in future no walkie-talkies or any product requiring statutory approval/certification is listed, hosted, advertised or sold on its platform without full compliance with applicable laws and mandatory disclosures.

c) The opposite party shall periodically carry out self-audit of its platform so that such violations of law through deceptive listings/ hastings and advertisements are not prevalent. It shall further publish certificate of such self-audit on their website in public and consumer interest.

d) Submit a compliance report of the directions (a) & (b) above within 15 days of receipt of the Order.”

4. During the course of arguments, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, requested that with respect to the directions contained in para. 43(a) and 43(c) of the Impugned Order he be granted liberty to assail them before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (‘National Commission’). Mr. Datar also seeks liberty to agitate before the NCDRC, the issue pertaining to the applicability, or lack thereof, of the Act, E-Commerce Rules, and the Guidelines, to the petitioner.

5. The petition qua the challenge to the aforesaid directions contained in para. 43(a) and 43(c) of the Impugned Order stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the appellate forum i.e., the NCDRC.

6. Let an appeal be filed within a period of two weeks from today. If there is any delay, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application seeking a condonation of the same. In any case, the time consumed in prosecuting the instant petition can be requested to be condoned, besides the time which the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek a condonation of, if it has been consumed for any other good reason.

7. All rights and contentions with respect to the aforesaid adjudication are left open.

8. Mr. Datar, further, apprises the Court that with respect to the directions pertaining to walkie-talkies, as contained in para. 43(b) of the Impugned Order, the petitioner has already ensured full compliance with it. It is his stand that Facebook Marketplace is not permitting the listing, advertising, and hosting of w