In a significant development for the e-commerce sector regarding "intermediary liability," the Karnataka High Court has granted interim relief to Flipkart Internet Private Limited. The Court has stayed a ₹10 lakh penalty recently imposed by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) over the alleged unauthorized sale of walkie-talkies on the platform.
The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice BM Shyam Prasad on February 2, 2026. Along with the stay on the monetary penalty, the Court also put on hold the CCPA’s direction requiring the e-commerce giant to conduct periodic self-audits of its listings.
The case traces back to January 2026, when the CCPA—the national watchdog for consumer rights—took action against major online marketplaces, including Flipkart and Meta Platforms (Facebook Marketplace).
The CCPA found that these platforms were hosting listings for walkie-talkies that did not meet mandatory regulatory disclosures. Under Indian law, walkie-talkies are regulated devices that often require:
- Wireless Operating Licenses from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).
- Equipment Type Approval (ETA) Certification.
- Specific disclosures regarding the operating frequency range.
The CCPA’s investigation concluded that the absence of these details misled consumers into believing that the devices were lawful for unrestricted use by the general public. Consequently, the Authority labeled these listings as "misleading advertisements" and "unfair trade practices" under Sections 2(28) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
For these violations, the CCPA slapped a penalty of ₹10 lakh on Flipkart and ordered a mandatory "self-audit" mechanism to prevent such listings in the future.
Challenging the CCPA’s order before the High Court, Flipkart, represented by Senior Advocate GS Kannur, raised a fundamental legal question: Who is responsible for the product details—the platform or the seller?
Flipkart’s arguments centered on three main points:
1. The Role of an Intermediary The petitioner argued that as an e-commerce marketplace, it is merely an "intermediary" under the Information Technology Act. It provides a platform where third-party retailers list their products. Flipkart contended that the responsibility for ensuring a product complies with specific licensing laws (like those for walkie-talkies) rests solely with the retailers, not the platform.
2. Jurisdiction of the CCPA Senior Counsel Kannur argued that the CCPA exceeded its jurisdiction by holding the platform liable for the omissions of individual sellers. He highlighted that under the existing consumer protection framework, the compliance obligations for product specifications and licenses are the duty of the "seller" listed on the website.
3. Proactive Compliance The Court was informed that Flipkart has already taken down the controversial walkie-talkie listings. By removing the products immediately upon receiving directions, Flipkart argued it had shown "due diligence" as required by law.