National security alert: Why Flipkart, Meta were just fined Rs 10 lakh over ‘Illegal’ walkie-talkie sales

Directing both the companies to ensure no walkie-talkies or any product requiring statutory approval/certification is listed, hosted, advertised or sold on those platforms, the authority also ordered periodic self-audit so that such violations of law through “deceptive listings/ hostings and advertisements” are not prevalent.

Findings Against Flipkart

• Total 65, 931 walkie-talkies were listed and sold on Flipkart without adequate disclosures.
• The sale of walkie-talkies that did not comply with mandatory legal requirements amounts to misleading consumers exposing them to potential regulatory risks and national security implications.
• Flipkart violated Sections 2(9) (right to be informed), 2(11) (deficiency in service), 2(28) (misleading advertisement) and 2(47) (unfair trade practice) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
• By presenting an untrue, incomplete and misleading claim, Flipkart has engaged in unfair trade practices, warranting corrective measures.
• The platform has engaged in unfair trade practice, false and misleading advertisement.
• The platform is accessible nationwide through its website, enabling consumers from different states and union territories to access and purchase the listed products.
• Any misleading or non-compliant listing on such a platform has the potential to affect a large number of consumers.
• The product under examination is a sensitive device and has a bearing on national security.
• Flipkart has to carry out the due diligence required by the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011.
• The gravity of the violation is compounded by a misleading representation that the product may not need licensing and listed without mandatory disclosures.
• This misrepresentation has pushed unsuspecting consumers towards the risks of legal troubles for use of unapproved products.
• This action has seriously undermined consumer interest.
• It is necessary to impose a penalty in consumer interest.
• The listings falsely implied lawful availability of regulated radio equipment.
• Mandatory information on licensing, frequency bands and equipment type approval (ETA) certification was deliberately concealed.
• Reliance solely on seller declarations without verification showed systemic compliance failure.
• Post-notice corrective steps could not absolve prior violations.

Findings against Facebook Marketplace

• The sale of walkie-talkies did not comply with mandatory legal requirements.
• It amounts to misleading consumers and exposing them to potential regulatory risks and national security implications.
• Such action has seriously undermined consumer interest as well as national security.
• The platform failed to provide the number of units sold by them.
• The walkie-talkies were advertised as offering high-range communication.
• This indicated potential operation on frequency bands not exempted under the applicable rules.
• This misrepresentation pushed unsuspecting consumers towards the risks of legal troubles for use of unapproved products.
• Platforms such as Meta cannot function merely as passive intermediaries.
• E-commerce entities are required to take reasonable steps to prevent the listing, hosting, advertising and sale of prohibited products, as well as other illegal activities on their platform.
• Meta’s conduct undermined consumer safety and violated consumer laws and the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements, 2022.
• The platform is not merely a passive facilitator as it exercises substantial control over the products listed, hosted and advertised on it.
• The listings of walkie-talkies continued even after regulatory advisories.
• Absence of frequency and licensing disclosures misled consumers into believing unrestricted legality.
• Availability of regulated devices indicated inadequate enforcement mechanisms.

Background

• The proceedings originated from suo moto cognisance taken by the CCPA last year under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Flipkart and Meta (the company which owns Facebook).
• It noticed that walkie-talkies were being offered for sale on Flipkart’s website and application, as well as on Facebook Marketplace, without any disclosure on whether the devices required a licence or complied with wireless regulatory norms.
• The authority said that walkie-talkies are regulated under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and the Wireless Planning and Coordination (WPC) Wing rules.
• According to the Use of Low Power and Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018, only devices operating within specified frequency bands are exempt from licensing, while others mandatorily require equipment type approval (ETA) from WPC.

Flipkart’s arguments

• Flipkart, in its replies dated May 17 2025, October 18, 2025 and during hearings between September to December 2025 submitted that it functioned purely as an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Advocates Dheeraj Nair, Vrishtyui Sahni, Sahir Seth, appearing for the e-commerce platform argued that sellers independently list products and fill in technical details without control by Flipkart.
• The counsel submitted that the responsibility for regulatory compliance lies solely with third-party sellers
• They said that the platform is protected by the safe harbour provision under Section 79 of the IT Act.
  Upon receiving notice from the CCPA, it delisted all identified walkie-talkie listings as a precautionary measure, said the counsel.
• Flipkart further submitted that it had complied with due diligence obligations under the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Facebook Marketplace’s argument

• Advocate Namrata Singh, country counsel (India), Meta India along with other India and global representatives submitted that Facebook Marketplace is not a marketplace e-commerce entity but a user-to-user discovery feature.
• In its replies dated 17 May 2025, 17 October 2025 and during hearings in October and December 2025, Meta argued that transactions occur outside the platform, with no checkout, payment or delivery facilitation.
• It said that the listings are user-generated content governed by Meta’s commerce policies
• Walkie-talkie listings were removed upon notice, it added.
• The company further contended that additional safeguards like machine-learning detection, keyword blocking and search restrictions were introduced.
• Meta also submitted that it exercised due diligence and liability for compliance rested with sellers.