Facebook India appeals to High Court against order to compensate man for fraudulent ad

Facebook India Online Services and META Platforms Inc. have applied to the Bombay High Court to challenge a consumer redress commission order ordering them to pay Rs 25,599 to a worker for failing to deliver a product he had purchased online and for a fraudulent ad.

A Nagpur court, chaired by Judge Manish Pitale, on Thursday heard two petitions filed by Facebook India Online Services Pvt Ltd and META Platforms Inc. against the order issued by the Gondia District Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission in June 2022.

The commission had ordered companies to pay a person Rs 599 for non-delivery of a product bought online and Rs 25,000 for causing mental agony.

Judge Pitale stayed the commission’s order, but ordered Facebook India and META Platforms to deposit the amount with the high court clerk. The court also notified the plaintiff and adjourned the hearing for November 15.

The commission had issued the order following a complaint filed by Tribhuvan Bhongade, a day laborer, who claimed to have seen an advertisement on Facebook by a certain Marya Studios selling Nike shoes for Rs 599.

Bhongade stated that he had placed an order for the shoes and paid with his debit card in September 2020, but never received the shoes. Furthermore, he claimed that he had tried to call the customer service number of Marya Studios, where a person further swindled him out of Rs 7,568.

The lawyers for Facebook India and META Platforms, Vivek Reddy, Soli Cooper and Charuhas Dharmadhikari, argued that the commission had made the order without jurisdiction and that the claim could not be upheld as the plaintiff’s complaint should have been brought against Marya Studios, that it was the company that had supposedly deceived him.

The commission had ordered companies to pay a person Rs 599 for non-delivery of a product purchased online and Rs 25,000 for causing mental agony.

In their pleadings, the companies argued that they enjoy immunity in these matters under the disclaimer provisions of the Information Technology Act.

The petitions further claimed that the companies had no role in the transaction and had not received any payment from Bhongade.

Facebook India cannot be considered an e-commerce entity or marketplace e-commerce entity as it does not provide a platform for e-commerce and therefore cannot be held liable, it stated.

Bhongade, in his complaint filed with the Commission, had claimed that Facebook, in collusion with other people, was running a scam and misleading people through these false, misleading and fraudulent advertisements.

Narendra Modi told Vladimir Putin that “the current era is not an era of war” on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine

Bhongade had requested compensation of Rs 1,27,568 for the agony suffered.

In their pleadings, the companies argued that they enjoy immunity in these matters under the disclaimer provisions of the Information Technology Act.

The commission ordered Facebook to return Rs 599 to Bhongade and pay him Rs 25,000 for mental agony, and ordered the company to regularly post scam awareness ads to prevent such incidents.

Article republished from The Wire as part of an agreement between both parties to share content. Link to original article: https://thewire.in/tech/facebook-india-moves-hc-against-order-to-pay-compensation-to-man-for-fraudulent-ad