Meta moves Delhi HC against CCPA order on Facebook Marketplace

Story by ANI | Posted by Vidushi Gaur | Date 18-03-2026

Representational Image

New Delhi

Meta Platforms has approached the Delhi High Court challenging an order by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), arguing that its Facebook Marketplace has been wrongly classified as an e-commerce platform.

The dispute stems from a January 1 order in which the CCPA held Meta in violation of consumer and IT laws over listings of walkie-talkies on the platform. The authority extended its directions beyond the specific case, mandating compliance requirements for all products needing statutory approvals.

Meta contended that the order goes beyond the scope of the original inquiry and imposes broad obligations without giving the company a fair opportunity to respond. It termed the directions “legally untenable” and beyond the regulator’s jurisdiction.

The company maintained that Facebook Marketplace is a free, user-driven platform where individuals list goods independently. It does not handle payments, deliveries, or order processing, nor does it charge commissions—features that distinguish it from conventional e-commerce platforms.

Arguing that it falls outside the ambit of e-commerce regulations, Meta warned that the CCPA’s interpretation could subject a wide range of digital platforms to similar regulatory burdens.

The company also challenged the authority’s reliance on IT intermediary rules, stating that the CCPA lacks the power to enforce them.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, described the platform as a “digital notice board” where users connect directly without the company facilitating transactions.

During the hearing, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav questioned why Meta had not approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), suggesting the issue involved jurisdiction.

In response, Meta argued the matter concerns a fundamental lack of jurisdiction rather than a procedural issue. The court has asked the company to file written submissions and will hear the case further on March 25.