CCPA Imposes ₹1 Lakh Penalty for Listing Walkie-Talkies Without Mandatory Regulatory Disclosures

In matter of Antriksh Technosys Pvt. Ltd. (CCPA Delhi)

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) initiated suo motu proceedings against Antriksh Technosys Pvt. Ltd. concerning the advertisement and listing of walkie-talkie devices on its website without mandatory disclosures regarding licensing requirements and regulatory compliance.

During a preliminary inquiry under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, CCPA examined the regulatory framework governing walkie-talkies. It noted that under the Use of Low Power and Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018, Personal Mobile Radios (PMRs) operating within the frequency range of 446.0–446.2 MHz are exempt from licensing, whereas other wireless radio frequency devices require Equipment Type Approval (ETA) from the Wireless Planning and Coordination (WPC) Wing. CCPA observed that the website did not disclose operating frequency ranges, licensing requirements, ETA/WPC certification status, or other regulatory information necessary for consumers to determine whether a device was licence-exempt or required statutory approvals.

CCPA formed a prima facie view that the omission of these disclosures concealed essential information, affected informed consumer decision-making, and appeared to constitute misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It also observed that the platform appeared to be in violation of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, which require complete and accurate product information to be prominently displayed. Accordingly, a notice dated 12.06.2025 was issued seeking details including seller information, product URLs, frequency specifications, licensing disclosures, ETA/WPC verification, and sales data from January 2023 onwards.

In its reply dated 13.06.2025, the company stated that it was not registered on any e-commerce platform, did not sell products through an e-commerce website, used its website only for informational and educational purposes, based product listings on manufacturer specifications, primarily dealt with government clients, had received no consumer complaints, claimed compliance with applicable laws, produced an ETA certificate, and stated that licensing information would be updated within one to two months.

After examining the reply, CCPA observed that product descriptions still omitted crucial regulatory information, consumers could be exposed to legal and financial risks due to absence of licensing disclosures, technical specifications and legality information were incomplete, mandatory pre-purchase information was not clearly available, and consumer awareness and informed decision-making were adversely affected. The matter was therefore referred on 07.08.2025 to the Director General (Investigation) for detailed investigation.

The Director General (Investigation), in the report dated 03.12.2025, found that walkie-talkie listings continued on the company’s website until November 2025 without mandatory disclosures relating to licensing requirements, frequency ranges, spectrum compliance, ETA, or WPC certification. The investigation further recorded that the website did not contain an “Add to Cart” feature and did not function as an e-commerce platform in the conventional sense. However, the Director of the company admitted that no changes had been made to the website despite the show cause notice and that non-compliant listings had not been removed. The investigation also recorded inconsistencies regarding descriptions such as “Best walkie-talkie for army and military” and noted that frequency information remained absent despite available space in product descriptions. The report further recorded that 1,014 units had been sold between May 2025 and the date of investigation, primarily to government entities, and that WPC/ETA certificates had been produced for various products although certificates for certain devices were unavailable. The investigation concluded that the company had not removed non-compliant listings, continued displaying products lacking mandatory disclosures, facilitated access to such products through advertisements and enquiry forms, omitted critical consumer disclosures, failed to remove unlawful material after obtaining knowledge of the issue, and thereby established violations relating to consumer rights, misleading advertisements, unfair trade practices and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The investigation report was supplied to the company, and hearings were conducted. During the hearing on 16.12.2025, the company submitted that it did not undertake online sales, that its website functioned only as a promotional platform generating enquiries, that sales were completed offline through tenders, quotations, Government e-Marketplace (GeM), or after obtaining necessary licences, and that all devices supplied were traceable through serial numbers. It admitted that prior to receipt of the notice, its website had not prominently disclosed licensing requirements, permitted frequency ranges, or regulatory restrictions, and stated that a general disclaimer had been added after receipt of the notice. The Authority directed the company to file an affidavit supported by details of sales, buyers, licences, and approvals. Subsequent hearings were adjourned or not attended by the company, and the required affidavit or undertaking was not submitted despite additional opportunities.

The company subsequently reiterated that its website merely promoted products and generated leads similar to other listing platforms and that no direct online purchases could be made. CCPA rejected this contention, observing that displaying and promoting regulated products without adequate disclosures could mislead consumers and facilitate access to regulated goods. The Authority further clarified that, for the purposes of the proceedings, “listings” included hosting and publication of product-related information amounting to advertisements under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CCPA examined the definitions of misleading advertisement, unfair trade practice, e-commerce, marketplace e-commerce entities, and the obligations imposed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and the Department of Telecommunications advisory relating to online sale and purchase of wireless equipment. It held that the company’s platform enabled listing, hosting, categorisation, discovery and facilitation of transactions and therefore attracted statutory obligations regardless of the absence of online checkout functionality. The Authority further observed that intermediaries are required to exercise due diligence to prevent hosting unlawful or misleading content and that such duties extend beyond passive hosting.

Upon consideration of the material, CCPA recorded findings that the company had hosted and advertised walkie-talkie devices without mandatory disclosures relating to licensing requirements, frequency range, spectrum compliance, ETA and WPC certification; omitted material information affecting consumer rights under Sections 2(9), 2(11), 2(28) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; listed products without disclosure of frequency specifications or certification; concealed mandatory ETA information; failed to comply with disclosure obligations under the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020; failed to exercise due diligence before regulatory intervention; and continued displaying products despite receiving notice. The Authority also observed that consumers rely on online descriptions and that omission of regulatory information exposed them to regulatory risks.

The Authority concluded that the company had violated Sections 2(28) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, and the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022. Exercising powers under Sections 10, 20 and 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, CCPA imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000 for misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices. It further directed the company to ensure that no walkie-talkies or products requiring statutory approval or certification are listed, hosted, advertised or sold on its platform without full legal compliance and mandatory disclosures, to periodically conduct self-audits of its platform and publish self-audit certificates on its website, and to submit a compliance report regarding payment of penalty and implementation of directions within 15 days of receipt of the order.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY

1. This is a suo moto case taken up by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (hereinafter referred as `CCPA’) against Antriksh Technosys Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as ‘opposite party’] with regard to advertisement and sale of walkie-talkies on its online platform without the necessary disclosures.

2. Taking cognizance of the impugned advertisements, the CCPA, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), conducted a preliminary inquiry and examined that the use of walkie-talkies is regulated under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. The Wireless Planning and Coordination (WPC) Wing under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology regulates the use of walkie-talkies. The Use of Low Power and Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018 provide guidelines and procedures for obtaining a walkie-talkie license, and also lists devices exempted from licensing requirements.

3. It may be noted that Rule 3 Table V of the Use of Low Power and Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018 issued vide Ministry of Communication’s Notification dated 18th October 2018 prescribes that Personal Mobile Radios (PMRs) that operate in the frequency range of 446.0- 446.2 MHz (megahertz), are exempted from the requirement of a license. All other wireless radio frequency devices, including PMRs operating outside the aforesaid frequency range, are mandatorily required to obtain Equipment Type Approval (ETA) from the Wireless Planning and Coordination (WPC) Wing to ensure regulatory compliance. These ETAs are granted for ensuring compliance with Radio Frequency (RF) regulations. Therefore, ETA holders must obtain No Objection Certificate or other clearances (if applicable) from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) before importing the equipment.

4. Considering the above Rules & Regulations and consumer rights as defined under Section 2(9) of the Act which include the right to be informed about the standard and genuineness of goods and services, the right to be protected against the marketing of good, products which are hazardous to life and property and the right to consumer awareness, it was found that walkie-talkies are being sold on opposite party’s website (https://www.antrikshonline.com/) without compulsory and clear disclosures regarding the requirement of a wireless operating license or compliance with applicable laws. The opposite party was found to be not providing details of licensing requirement regarding the operating frequency range of the walkie-talkies, making it difficult for consumers to determine whether the product falls under the license-exempt or license-required category. The product listings for walkie-talkies do not specify whether the device requires a license from the concerned authority for use. By omitting such crucial information, these listings appeared to mislead consumers into believing that the devices are legal for unrestricted use.

5. CCPA prima facie observed that opposite party did not provide details regarding the operating frequency range of the walkie-talkies, making it difficult for consumers to determine whether the product falls under the license-exempt or license-required category. Through such product listing and advertisements, opposite party was attracting consumers to purchase these products while concealing essential information, thereby manipulating informed decision-making. The action appeared to fall within the definition of a misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

6. It may be noted that, as per the E-commerce Rules, every e-commerce entity including the opposite party, is required to ensure that important information is prominently displayed and accurate and complete product details are provided. In the present case, it appeared that opposite party has failed to meet these obligations, thereby violating the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020.

7. In light of these facts, and keeping in view Sections 2(28), 2(47) and 21 of the Act, which prohibit misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices, the CCPA took cognizance of the violations. CCPA also took note of Guidelines 4 and 12 of the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022. These Guidelines mandate that advertisements must make only truthful and honest claims, avoid misleading consumers with unsubstantiated assertions, and ensure that any claim based on objectively verifiable facts can be substantiated when required by the Central Authority, without exaggerating the accuracy, performance, or service of the product. The impugned listing/advertisement appeared to be in violation of abovementioned provisions of the Act.

8. Accordingly, CCPA issued a notice dated 12.06.2025 to the opposite party. The notice specifically pointed out abovementioned issues and a sample of the screenshot of the advertisement of the impugned product was also enclosed as an annexure to the said notice for their reference and response. An opportunity to furnish response within 15 days of the issuance of notice was given to the opposite party to substantiate its claims, along with the following information:

i. Name and contact details of each seller;

ii. Product URLs and listing IDs of the walkie-talkie devices;

iii. Details of frequency specifications and any licensing information displayed on the listings;

iv. Whether ETA/WPC certification details have been collected or verified for these products; and

v. The number of units sold per listing from January 2023 to date.

9. In response to the notice, a reply dated 13.06.2025 was received via email wherein the company stated that:

i. It is not registered on any e-commerce platform, nor sold any product through e-commerce website, hence there is no data of any buyer.

ii. It does not operate as an e-commerce platform and only uses the website for informational and educational purposes;

iii. All product listings are based on manufacturer specifications and that no sales are conducted to the general public;

iv. It primarily deals with government clients and has not received any consumer complaints;

v. It claims compliance with local laws and attached an Equipment Type Approval (ETA) certificate;

vi. It has committed to updating product specifications and licensing information within 1-2 months.

10. In view of the above, the CCPA examined the opposite party’s reply and found that:

i. Product descriptions omit crucial regulatory information, including licensing and frequency compliance, which misleads consumers about product legality and usage.

ii. Selling products without disclosing whether they require licenses or approval can result in legal and financial risks to consumers.

iii. Lack of disclosures and incomplete information about technical specifications and legality hinders consumer’s ability to make informed decisions.

iv. Omission of key product-related regulatory disclosures compromises consumer safety and awareness.

v. The platform fails to provide mandatory pre-purchase information in a clear and accessible manner enabling the consumer to make informed choices.

11. Thus, keeping in mind the above observations and as per Section-19 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, CCPA was satisfied that there exists prima facie case of violation of consumer rights, misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice read with Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 and Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020. Therefore, vide letter dated 07.08.2025, the matter was referred for detailed investigation by the Director General (Investigation).

12. The Director General (Investigation) in its investigation report dated 03.12.2025 submitted the following:

a. The company continued the listings of walkie-talkie devices on its own website till November, 2025 without mandatory disclosures regarding:

• • • Licensing requirements under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.
    • Frequency range and spectrum compliance.
    • Equipment Type Approval (ETA) and Wireless Planning & Coordination (WPC) certification status.

b. During the subsequent meeting with the Investigation Wing, the company acknowledged that the website is maintained only for informational and educational purposes and is not intended to function as an e-commerce platform. Upon further scrutiny, it was observed that the company’s website does not function as an e- commerce platform, as there is no “Add to Cart” or any similar feature indicative of online sale transactions.

c. It was established during the meeting itself and also accepted by the director of the company that no changes have yet been made on the website, despite the issuance of the SCN, and that no product has been delisted even where the frequency range is not exempted.

d. The Director of the company initially stated that claims such as “Best walkie-talkie for army and military. We provide best and trusted products” were used as keywords. However, when this point was challenged during the meeting clarifying that it was not a keyword and had been placed in the “Latest News” section of the website, the Director stated that it was included merely to enhance the website. In contrast, the company’s written submission claimed that these products were “Military Grade Equipment under MIL standard,” which contradicts the earlier explanation and raises concerns regarding national security.

e. The Director stated that the website was developed by a third party and is not directly monitored by him. When questioned during the meeting about incomplete documents and missing frequency ranges for some products, the Director explained that they upload the information provided by other companies, and due to limited space, the frequency may not have been included. However, during the meeting, it was shown that ample space was available in the descriptions, even up to 10 lines, yet the frequency was still missing. The company’s only response was that they had not checked what was being published on the website.

f. The omission of such material information specifically regarding frequency range, licensing requirements, and legal usage conditions deprives consumers of essential information required to make informed purchasing decisions and exposes them to potential legal and safety risks.

g. It also indicates deficiency in the platform’s obligations and due diligence mechanisms particularly in verifying the legality of listed products, thereby failure to exercise due diligence in moderating content on its platform.

h. The company has submitted sales records showing that a total of 1,014 units were sold between May 2025 and the present, primarily to government entities rather than individual customers.

i. Additionally, the certificates submitted by the company confirms that the company’s management system complies with the ISO 14001:2015 Environmental Management Standard.

j. The company has submitted WPC/ETA certificates and licenses for various walkie-talkie products; however, certain device certificates are not provided.

Conclusion: Based on the investigation conducted pursuant to the directions of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), and upon review of the material facts, statutory provisions, and the company’s conduct, the following conclusions are drawn:

i. The investigation finds that Antriksh Technosys Pvt. Ltd. has not taken any steps to delist non-compliant walkie-talkie products from its platform. Despite the issuance of the show-cause notice, the company has neither removed any products from its website nor made any changes to the website.

ii. Further verification revealed that walkie-talkie products lacking mandatory frequency disclosures continue to remain listed on the platform till date as of November, 2025. The continued presence of such non-compliant listings reflects a clear lapse in the company’s compliance and monitoring mechanisms and constitutes a violation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

iii. Although the company does not directly sell products through its platform, it advertises walkie-talkie products and provides an enquiry form visible when viewing listings. While it is unclear whether actual sales occur through these enquiries, such conduct of promoting and facilitating access to products that do not meet mandatory standards amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

iv. The product listings on the website omit critical consumer disclosures regarding frequency specifications, licensing obligations, and certification status, thereby violating the consumer’s right to information and constituting misleading advertisement under Sections 2(9), 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

v. This continued availability, even after receiving actual knowledge during the investigation, reflects the company’s failure to expeditiously remove or disable access to unlawful material, thereby constituting a deficiency in services under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In view of the above, as per the investigation conducted, a case relating to the violation of consumer rights, misleading advertisement, and unfair trade practice under the Consumer deficiency in services and unfair trade Protection Act, 2019 stands established.

13. The Investigation Report submitted by DG (Investigation) was shared with the opposite party vide letter dated 08.12.2025 to furnish its comments. Additionally, the opposite party was provided with an opportunity of hearing on 16.12.2025. However, the opposite party failed to provide their written comments before the hearing.

14. Thereafter, CCPA conducted a hearing on 16.12.2025, wherein Mr. Jatin Arora, Director, Antriksh Technosys Pvt. Ltd., appeared on behalf of the opposite party. During the hearing, the company submitted that it does not undertake online sale of walkie-talkie devices and that its website is maintained purely for informational purposes to generate inquiries from prospective buyers, including government and private entities. It was stated that any sales, if undertaken, are concluded offline through formal channels such as tenders, quotations, Government e-Marketplace (GeM) or against requisite licenses and approvals as mandated by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). The company further contended that walkie-talkie devices are never sold to unknown consumers and that all devices supplied are traceable through unique serial numbers recorded on the DoT portal, thereby ensuring traceability and regulatory oversight.

15. However, upon specific queries raised by the Authority, the company admitted that prior to receipt of the notice, its website did not prominently disclose critical compliance-related information, including licensing requirements, permitted frequency ranges, and regulatory restrictions applicable to walkie-talkie devices, despite being aware of the applicable DoT guidelines. He further acknowledged that a general disclaimer regarding licensing requirements and prohibition on online sale was incorporated on the website after receipt of intimation in June, attributing the earlier absence of detailed compliance disclosures to the large number of products listed and limited internal resources.

16. The company also admitted that it had effected offline sales of walkie-talkie devices in the past, primarily to government departments, public sector undertakings, railways, and licensed private entities, and stated that licenses were obtained for such transactions. It was further submitted that the company’s internal team assists prospective buyers in completing technical and licensing formalities on the DoT portal, particularly in cases where end-users lack the requisite technical expertise. In response to queries regarding compliance assurance when buyers approach the company after viewing products online, the company reiterated that sales are finalised only upon verification of requisite licenses and regulatory approvals.

17. The Authority, while taking note of the submissions made during the hearing, directed the company to file a detailed affidavit along with supporting documents, including particulars of sales effected, categories of buyers (government/private), and proof of licensing and approvals, so as to substantiate its claims and clarify the extent of compliance, particularly in the post-COVID period and thereafter.

18. In furtherance of all the above, the opposite party was furnished another opportunity of hearing on 15.01.2026. However, the party failed to appear for the hearing. The next hearing was scheduled on 09.03.2026 and 24.03.2026, but the hearing could not be conducted due to the unavailability of the Central Authority.

19. Accordingly, the next hearing was scheduled on 30.03.2026, but the hearing could not be conducted since the party failed to appear for the hearing. The next hearing was scheduled on April 28, 2026. During the hearing, Mr. Jatin Arora, Director, Antriksh Technosys Pvt. Ltd., appeared on behalf of the opposite party. At the outset, the Authority noted that sufficient opportunity had already been granted to the opposite party, including time to submit an undertaking and requisite details as sought during the previous hearing. It was further observed that despite the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, the opposite party had continued to display walkie-talkie products on its website till November 2025 without incorporating the mandatory disclosures regarding frequency range, licensing requirements, ETA certification, and other regulatory compliances, as required under law.

20. The Authority further recorded that the opposite party had been specifically directed in the previous hearing to furnish an affidavit, which has still not been received by the Authority. The opposite party submitted that certain emails regarding hearing opportunities were not received by them and that they failed to furnish the affidavit because they were not aware of the format in which the affidavit was required to be furnished.

21. In its submissions, the opposite party, further contended that it was not engaged in online sale of walkie-talkies and that its website was merely a promotional platform intended for advertisement and lead generation, akin to listings on platforms such as IndiaMART or Tradelndia. It was further submitted that no direct purchase could be made through the website and that the information displayed was only descriptive in nature, including references to “military-grade” specifications and technical standards.

22. The Authority, however, did not find merit in the said contention and observed that hosting and promoting such products, particularly those which are regulated and cannot be freely distributed to the general public, imposes a responsibility upon the opposite party. The Authority questioned the necessity of displaying such advertisements and technical claims, especially when such products are not meant for unrestricted public use. It was further observed that even if the platform was used for promotional purposes, the act of advertising and making such products visible to consumers without adequate disclosures and safeguards could mislead consumers and facilitate access to regulated goods.

23. The Authority also took note of the fact that similar platforms had been issued notices for hosting regulated and potentially illegal products, thereby reinforcing the obligation of entities to ensure due diligence. It was emphasized that corrective actions taken only after regulatory intervention do not absolve the opposite party of its initial non-compliance. Although, during the hearing, the opposite party sought additional time to submit an undertaking stating that it had neither engaged in online selling nor misled consumers, the Authority observed that sufficient time had already been granted. However, in the interest of natural justice, the Authority allowed a final opportunity of one week to the opposite party to submit the undertaking, failing which the matter would be decided on the basis of material available on record.

24. However, the opposite party has not yet submitted the written affidavit or undertaking to the Central Authority.

25. For the purposes of the present proceedings, it is clarified that references to “listings” on the opposite party’s platform are to be understood as including the hosting and publication of product-related information amounting to advertising activity. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, any digital dissemination of information that promotes, offers, or invites consumers to purchase goods constitutes advertising directed at consumers. Simultaneously, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 recognise that intermediaries host, display and make available third-party commercial communications on their platforms. Accordingly, where a structured digital platform enables the public display and discovery of goods, with the objective of attracting potential buyers, such listings assume the legal character of advertisements hosted and published through an intermediary system. The use of the term “listing” in this Order therefore includes its nature as an advertisement hosted on its platform.

26. It may be mentioned that Section- 2(28) of the Act defines “misleading advertisement” in relation to any product or service means an advertisement, which—

i. falsely describes such product or service; or

ii. gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or

iii. conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or

iv. deliberately conceals important information.

27. From a plain reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is evident that any advertisement must adhere to the following principles:-

i. It should present a truthful and honest representation of facts.

ii. Any assertions or guarantees made in the advertisement must be supported by credible and authentic evidence, studies, or materials.

iii. Must not engage in unfair trade practices as defined under Section 2(47) of the Act. Specifically:

iv. It should not make false or misleading claims regarding the necessity or usefulness of any goods or services [Section 2(47) (f)].

v. It should not adopt any unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(47) of the Act, including making a materially misleading warranty, guarantee, or promise, or one that has no reasonable prospect of being carried out [Section 2(47)(h)].

vi. Important information must be disclosed in a clear, prominent, and hard to miss manner to ensure that no critical details are concealed from consumers.

28. It may also be mentioned that Section- 2(16) of the Act defines “e-commerce” as “buying or selling of goods or services including digital products over digital or electronic network”.

Further, Rule 3(g) of The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, defines “marketplace e-commerce entity” means an e-commerce entity which provides an information technology platform on a digital or electronic network to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers;

Furthermore, Rule 5 of the above-mentioned Rules provides for the “Liabilities of marketplace e-commerce entities as: —

(1) A marketplace e-commerce entity which seeks to avail the exemption from liability under sub-section (1) of section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) shall comply with sub-sections (2) and (3) of that section, including the provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011.

(3) Every marketplace e-commerce entity shall provide the following information in a clear and accessible manner, displayed prominently to its users at the appropriate place on its platform:

(a) details about the sellers offering goods and services, including the name of their business, whether registered or not, their geographic address, customer care number, any rating or other aggregated feedback about such seller, and any other information necessary for enabling consumers to make informed decisions at the pre- purchase stage

29. From a plain reading of the above Rules, it is clear that the said platform falls within the very scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. The opposite party’s contention that the online platform of Antriksh Technosys Pvt. Ltd. is maintained purely for informational purposes to generate inquiries from government or private entities, with any sales, if undertaken, being concluded offline, does not carry much weight. The statutory definition of “e-commerce” under the Act is deliberately broad and encompasses the buying or selling of goods over a digital network, irrespective of the mode of payment or checkout functionality. The platform enables listing, hosting, categorisation, discovery, and facilitation of transactions between buyers and sellers, thereby playing an active role in the sale process. CCPA is of the view that regulatory obligations under consumer law must be determined by the functional role and consumer impact of the platform, and cannot be avoided by platform design choices or self-characterisation.

30. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, under the Information Technology Act, 2000, cast specific duties and obligations upon intermediaries. Rule 3(1) mandates that every intermediary shall exercise due diligence while discharging its functions, including making reasonable efforts to ensure that unlawful or misleading information is not hosted or published on its platform, and promptly removing such unlawful information upon receiving actual knowledge.

31. In the present case, Antriksh Technosys Pvt. Ltd. is required to exercise heightened due diligence to prevent the hosting, publication, promotion, or facilitation of unlawful or misleading content, particularly where such content relates to regulated radio-communication devices requiring statutory approvals/licences under Indian law. The continued availability of walkie-talkie listings, hostings and advertisements on Antriksh Technosys Pvt. Ltd. Marketplace without disclosure of mandatory regulatory information, notwithstanding prior notice and ongoing proceedings, indicates a failure to implement adequate safeguards expected of an intermediary of such scale and technological capacity. The obligations under Rules 3 and 4 extend beyond mere passive hosting and require the intermediary to maintain a responsible governance framework so as to prevent recurrence of unlawful listings, hostings and advertisements and to protect consumer rights. Therefore, the company’s assertions that the website is only maintained for informational purpose and no sale is done through e-commerce platform cannot dilute its statutory duty to ensure due diligence, user safety, and compliance with Indian law, particularly when unlawful commercial content has been allowed to appear and be accessible on its platform.

32. It is important to mention that Department of Telecommunication’s Spectrum Management on Online Sale or Purchase of Wireless Sets and Equipments which can be accessed via below link https://dot.qov.in/spectrummananement/online-sale-or-purchase-wireless-sets-and-equipments states the following:-

“ii) It is the responsibility of these intermediaries to follow certain due diligence guidelines as stated in the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011, which includes signing of “User Agreement” for access or usage of the intermediary’s computer resource by any person (Sellers and Purchasers under the referred context). These IT rules clearly indicate the typical aspects this “User Agreement” should address including the need for compliance of any laws by these sellers and the purchasers.

iii) In the instant case, there is a need for the Dealer Possession License (DPL) under the relevant provisions of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933 by the seller for wireless equipment if it is in the licensed bands or “Equipment Type Approval (ETA)” if it is in the de-licensed band. The purchaser needs to obtain “frequency authorization/agreement in principle letter” from WPC Wing, DoT under Indian Telegraph Act 1885 before purchasing any equipment in the licensed bands and subsequently wireless operating license for the same after submitting required documents and spectrum charges/ fees. Therefore, the on-line intermediaries need to ensure that these statutory requirements are fulfilled.

4. Therefore, it is reiterated that if there is any licensing/ statutory requirement on telecom equipment being sold or purchased, it will be the responsibility of those selling it or purchasing it, as well as of the online intermediaries facilitating such sale and purchase, that the relevant statutes of the Government are not violated.”

33. The CCPA has carefully examined the submissions made by the opposite party dated 13.06.2026, the oral submissions made during the hearing held on 16.12.2025 and 28.04.2026, and the Investigation Report dated 03.12.2025. Upon consideration, the following findings are recorded:

i. The opposite party hosted and advertised walkie-talkie devices on its platform without providing mandatory disclosures relating to:

a. Licensing requirements under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933;

b. Frequency range and spectrum compliance;

c. Equipment Type Approval (ETA) and Wireless Planning & Coordination (WPC) certification status.

ii. The omission of such material information constitutes a violation of consumer rights under Sections 2(9), 2(11), 2(28), and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and reflects a failure to ensure lawful and well-informed product promotion.

iii. A number of walkie-talkies were made accessible to consumers through the opposite party’s platform, without any disclosure of frequency specifications, licensing requirements, or ETA/WPC certification.

iv. The walkie-talkie devices listed, hosted and advertised on the platform were operating on radio frequency bands without adequate disclosure regarding the specific frequency range utilised, including whether such frequencies fell within or exceeded the limits permissible under law. Such omission constitutes a violation of Rule 3 of the “Use of Low Power and Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018”. ETA certification is mandatory for any person listing, manufacturing, or selling wireless equipment in India, as it ensures consumer safety and adherence to the authorized frequency spectrum. Therefore, ETA constitutes essential information that must be disclosed by both the platform and the seller. The opposite party thus concealed crucial information from consumers.

v. Accordingly, the listing, hosting and advertising of walkie-talkies on the opposite party’s platform without disclosing ETA (WPC) certification amounts to a violation of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 relating to unfair trade practice and misleading advertisements.

vi. Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 recognizes the consumer’s right to be informed, and mandates that e-commerce entities disclose all material information necessary to safeguard consumers against unfair trade practices.

vii. The Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 impose a duty on e-commerce entities to disclose, in a clear and accessible manner, all information necessary to enable consumers to make informed decisions at the pre-purchase stage, and to ensure such information is prominently displayed.

viii. Platforms such as the opposite party cannot function passively. Platforms are required to take reasonable steps to prevent the listing, hosting and advertising and sale of prohibited or non-compliant products, as well as other illegal activities on their platform.

ix. The opposite party is not merely a passive facilitator; it exercises substantial control over the products listed, hosted and advertised on its platform. While it may contend that it is impugned devices are listed merely for informational purpose, it nonetheless has a legal duty to ensure that such products are not offered for sale or permitted to be listed, hosted and advertised without mandatory disclosures and compliance with applicable laws. This responsibility arises particularly because the opposite party provides an organised platform for hosting, listings and advertisements, thereby playing a facilitative role in enabling and effectuating buyer-seller interactions. It is further observed that the opposite party incorporated necessary changes on its platform only after the issuance of the CCPA notice, indicating that no due diligence or proactive measures were taken prior to regulatory intervention.

x. A critical aspect of the matter concerns the protection of consumers who may have been misled into purchasing the impugned products under confusion and deception.

xi. It is important to note that consumers rely heavily on online descriptions, specifications, and images while shopping on e-commerce platforms, as they do not have physical access to the product. The display of walkie-talkies that did not comply with mandatory legal requirements amounts to misleading consumers and exposing them to potential regulatory risks and national security implications.

xii. The DoT public advisory reproduced in abovementioned para 32 explicitly places responsibility on intermediaries to ensure that sellers and purchasers comply with statutory requirements. Opposite party’s failure to verify or display ETA and licensing information constitutes non-compliance with the advisory and demonstrates disregard for regulatory obligations.

34. (a) Section- 2(28) of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 defines “misleading advertisement” in relation to any product or service, means an advertisement, which—

v. falsely describes such product or service; or

vi. gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or

vii. conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or

viii. deliberately conceals important information;

(b) From a bare reading of the above provisions of the Act, any advertisement should: –

i. Contain truthful & honest representation of facts,

ii. Have assertions, guarantees only when backed by underlying credible and authentic material, study etc.

iii. Not indulge in unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(47) of the Act. It should be free from false representation that the goods/services are of particular standard, quality [(section 2(47) (a)] and should not make false or misleading representation concerning the need for or usefulness of any goods or services [(section 2(47) (f)] of the Act with respect to unfair trade practice.

iv. Disclose the important information in such a manner that they are clear, prominent, and extremely hard to miss for viewers/consumers to not conceal important information.

(c) Further section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 states that:

“unfair trade practice means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provisions of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice (d) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have”.

The aforementioned provisions clearly establish the right of consumer to be informed, which also includes right to be protected from withholding of important information.

35. As already noted, the product under examination is a sensitive device and has a bearing on national security. The opposite party had to carry out the due diligence as required by the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. However, the gravity of the violation is further compounded by an implied misleading representation that the product may not need licensing. It is further observed that the walkie-talkies listed, hosted and displayed on the platform were advertised as offering high-range communication, indicating potential operation on frequency bands not exempted under the applicable Rules, and are hosted and advertised without the mandatory disclosures required under law. This misrepresentation has pushed unsuspecting consumers towards the risks of legal troubles for use of unapproved products. The action of the opposite party has seriously undermined consumer interest as well as national security.

41. Therefore, the opposite party has violated the following provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019:-

a. Section 2(28) (i)- Falsely describes such product or service

b. Section 2(28)(ii)- gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service

c. Section 2(28)(iii) – Unfair Trade Practice (conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or)

d. Section 2(28)(iv) — Deliberately conceals important information

e. Section 2(47)- Unfair Trade Practice (Clause (d) of said Section representing that the goods have approval) by failing to disclose that it did not have approval

f. The Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020

g. Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022.

41. The CCPA is empowered under Section- 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to issue directions to the advertiser of false or misleading advertisement to discontinue or modify the advertisement and if necessary, it may, by order, impose a penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees and for every subsequent contravention may extend to fifty lakh rupees. Further, Section 21 (7) of the above Act prescribes that following may be regarded while determining the penalty against false or misleading advertisement:-

a) the population and the area impacted or affected by such offence;

b) the frequency and duration of such offence;

c) the vulnerability of the class of persons likely to be adversely affected by such offence.

42. CCPA also examined the violations of the opposite party in light of the penal provision under section 21(2) of the Act .

a. The approach of the opposite party to not consider as an e-commerce platform and merely a website maintained for informational purpose is not in the best interest of consumers and public in general. Rule 3, Table V of the Use of Low Power and Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018, issued vide Notification of the Ministry of Communications dated 18th October 2018, stipulates that Personal Mobile Radios (PMRs) operating within the frequency band of 446.0­446.2 MHz are exempt from the requirement of obtaining a licence. However, all other wireless radio frequency devices, including walkie-talkies operating beyond the aforesaid frequency range, are mandatorily required to secure Equipment Type Approval (ETA) from the Wireless Planning and Coordination (WPC) Wing, in order to ensure conformity with the applicable regulatory framework. The grant of ETA is intended to ensure compliance with the prescribed Radio Frequency (RF) norms. Accordingly, ETA holders are further required to obtain a No-Objection Certificate or other requisite clearances, as applicable, from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) prior to import of such equipment.

b. The statutory prescription of a fixed and limited frequency band for licence-exempt Personal Mobile Radios is premised upon regulatory considerations of spectrum management, consumer safety, and national security. The underlying intent is to confine unregulated radio communication to low-power, short-range civilian usage like hotel or resort staff coordination, which does not interfere with licensed spectrum users, including public safety agencies, defence communications, emergency services and commercial telecom operators. By restricting licence-free operation to a narrow frequency range and prescribed technical parameters, the law seeks to minimise the risk of harmful radio interference, prevent misuse for unlawful or clandestine communications, and ensure traceability and regulatory oversight in respect of higher-risk devices. Thus, the exemption operates as a narrow and carefully-calibrated exception within an otherwise regulated spectrum framework, striking a balance between consumer convenience and the imperatives of national security and orderly spectrum utilisation.

c. In this context, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 places paramount importance on the consumer’s right to be informed and protected against practices that pose potential safety risks. Where radio communication devices operating beyond the licence-exempt band are marketed or made available without adequate disclosure of licensing requirements, frequency parameters or compliance status, consumers are deprived of the ability to make an informed purchasing decision. Such omission not only exposes consumers to the risk of inadvertent violation of law but also to possible interference-related hazards and disruption of essential communications. The absence of accurate and complete information therefore constitutes a serious consumer detriment within the meaning of the Act.

d. Antriksh Technosys Pvt. Ltd. is a platform architected and administered by the opposite party for the facilitation of such transactions on a regular and ongoing basis, and therefore falls outside the protective ambit of the Act and allied Rules.

e. The defence of maintaining the website for informational purposes and the advertisements and product listings related to warlike talkies, being prepared on the basis of specifications provided by the manufacturers, cannot be invoked to negate responsibility for failure to exercise due diligence at the relevant time.

Therefore, the conduct of the opposite party attracts the applicability of Section 21(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act mandates the CCPA to regulate matters prejudicial to the interest of public and consumer as a class. The manner of operation of the platform in a matter involving national interest is not in public interest in general and consumer interest in particular.

In light of the above, the CCPA finds it appropriate to impose a penalty on the opposite party for dissemination of misleading and non-compliant advertisements on a platform with significant consumer outreach, coupled with its failure to exercise due diligence and adequately monitor its platform, thereby causing detriment to public and consumer interest.

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 t1,00,000/-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/ hostings 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.

The above order and directions are passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon CCPA under section 10, 20, read with section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.