Central Consumer Protection Authority Vs Xboom (Central Consumer Protection Authority)
In the matter of: Suo moto proceedings initiated by the Central Consumer Protection Authority against Xboom regarding sale/hosting/listing/advertisement of Anti-Drone Systems / Drone Jammers / GPS Jammers, for alleged violation of consumer rights, misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice.
Summary: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) initiated suo moto proceedings against Xboom, an e-commerce platform, concerning its listing, hosting and advertisement of Anti-Drone Systems, Drone Jammers and GPS Jammers without disclosures concerning applicable licensing requirements and regulatory restrictions. The Authority examined the statutory framework governing consumer rights, misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, together with the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 and the regulatory framework governing restricted wireless and radio communication equipment. CCPA had earlier issued an Advisory dated 29.04.2022 concerning illegal facilitation and sale of wireless jammers on e-commerce platforms.
Xboom initially stated that the listings operated through an enquiry-based model intended for Government, Armed Forces and authorised defence establishments, and that the listings were suspended after receipt of the Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2026. The Authority found that Xboom did not furnish the documents sought during the investigation, including licensing approvals, purchaser details and other compliance records. The Investigation Report concluded that Xboom’s conduct violated Sections 2(9), 2(28) and 2(47) of the Act and Rules 4(3) and 4(6) of the E-Commerce Rules. Xboom subsequently relied upon a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.11.2025 with Mr. Manish Kumar, but CCPA found that the MoU was not a statutory licence or Government authorisation and that basic particulars concerning the counterparty and due diligence remained unverified.
CCPA held that website publication itself attracted the statutory concept of advertisement and that the absence of a completed sale or demonstrated consumer harm did not extinguish the violation. The Authority concluded that the listings concealed material information concerning licensing and penal consequences and conveyed an implied representation that the products were freely procurable. Exercising powers under Sections 10, 20 and 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, CCPA imposed the maximum penalty of Rs. 10 lakh for a first contravention.
Xboom was further directed not to list, host, advertise, promote or otherwise offer for sale Anti-Drone Systems, Drone Jammers, GPS Jammers or other wireless jamming/anti-drone equipment unless specified statutory approvals and licences are obtained and prominently displayed, a verifiable KYC/end-use authorisation mechanism is implemented for authenticated Government, defence or law-enforcement end-users, and licensing requirements and penal consequences are prominently disclosed on each listing. A compliance report was directed to be submitted within 15 days from the date 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 to as ‘CCPA’/’the Authority’) against Xboom, a company operating the e-commerce website www.xboom.in, having its registered office at Fourth Floor, #1664, 27th Main, Sector 2, HSR Layout, Bangalore – 560102 (hereinafter referred to as ‘opposite party’/’’Xboom’), with regard to the listing, hosting and advertisement of products described as “Anti-Drone Systems”, “Drone Jammer” and “GPS Jammer” on its platform, without the necessary statutory disclosures and regulatory authorisations.
2. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 read with Section 18(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the CCPA is empowered to inquire into violations of consumer rights and unfair trade practices, either suo motu, on receipt of complaints, or on directions issued by the Central Government.
3. CCPA had earlier issued an Advisory dated 29.04.2022 concerning the illegal facilitation and sale of wireless jammers on e-commerce platforms. The said Advisory specifically noted that wireless jammers, being capable of disrupting authorised telecom and wireless networks, are illegal for general sale and use, and that any facilitation or sale of such devices by e-commerce platforms would be viewed as an illegal activity and construed as a violation of consumer rights and adoption of unfair trade practices under the Act.
4. The products in question, namely Anti-Drone Systems, Drone Jammers and GPS Jammers, are wireless transmitting/jamming devices designed to interfere with licensed GPS and RF communication spectrum. Such devices fall within the category of restricted radio communication equipment regulated, inter alia, under:
(i) the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885;
(ii) Section 48 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023;
(iii) the wireless licensing regime administered by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT)/Wireless Planning & Coordination (WPC) Wing;
(iv) the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, requiring a DGFT licence with prior WPC/DoT and Cabinet Secretariat clearance;
(v) the Cabinet Secretariat Guidelines for Procurement, Possession and Use of Jammers, 2025; and (vi) the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, under which a Manufacturing & Testing Licence and an Experimental (Radiating) Licence are required for manufacture and possession of RF jamming equipment, and a Wireless Operating Licence is mandatory for its use, all of which collectively restrict such equipment strictly to authorised Government and security agencies.
5. Further, as per Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines (MHA O.M. dated 10.03.2023), prior permission of the MHA is mandatory for the manufacture, procurement, deployment and use of jammers, including those forming part of Counter Rogue Drone (CRD) systems, and only authorised agencies are permitted to procure or use such equipment. Section 42(3)(a) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 further makes possession or use of any equipment that blocks telecommunications, without authorisation, punishable with imprisonment up to three years or fine up to fifty lakh rupees, or both. Such devices, by their very design and function, are capable of disrupting civil aviation communications, public safety networks, and other critical communication infrastructure, and accordingly carry serious national security implications.
6. It is in view of the above regulatory and statutory position that CCPA took cognizance of, and conducted a preliminary inquiry wherein it was observed that, Xboom (www.xboom.in) had listed, hosted and advertised for sale six products under the “Anti- Drone” category of its website, each accompanied by detailed technical specifications and marketing descriptions of their jamming/disruption capabilities, and each offering only an “Enquire on WhatsApp” mode of interaction:
(i) X-Mini (Anti-Drone);
(ii) X-Radar XK2 (Vehicle Mounted Anti-Drone);
(iii) X-Eye (Anti-Drone);
(iv) X-Gun XK4 (Anti-Drone);
(v) RF-Patrol XK2 (Anti-Drone); and
(vi) XGaurd (Anti-Drone). (Annexure – 1) None of these listings, as observed by CCPA, carried any disclosure whatsoever regarding the licensing requirements, the restricted nature of the equipment, or the penal consequences of unauthorised possession or use under the applicable laws, and the conduct of Xboom accordingly appeared to violate the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and other applicable laws.
7. From the perusal of the preliminary inquiry report, it was found that, considering the above statutory framework and the consumer rights defined under Section 2(9) of the Act including the right to be informed about the quality, standard and legal status of goods, and the right to be protected against goods hazardous to life and property CCPA formed a prima facie view that any consumer viewing such listings would be unable to ascertain that lawful possession or use of the said devices requires prior Government authorisation, and that such information appeared to be deliberately concealed. This, prima facie, amounted to a violation of consumer rights under Section 2(9), misleading advertisement under Section 2(28), and unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act, as well as a violation of Rule 4(3) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 (which prohibits adoption of unfair trade practice by an e-commerce entity), and Rule 4(6) thereof (which mandates disclosure of importer details in respect of imported goods) which impacted consumer as a class.
8. Accordingly, CCPA issued a Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2026 (F. No. CCPA- 2/15/2026-CCPA) to Xboom, calling upon it to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against it for violation of Section 2(9), Section 2(28) and Section 2(47) of the Act, and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. Xboom was further directed to furnish, within fifteen days:
i. the source of procurement/import of the said products and copies of import licences, invoices and related documents
ii. copies of all regulatory approvals/authorisations obtained from WPC/DoT/DGFT/Cabinet Secretariat/MHA
iii. the legal basis for offering the said restricted equipment for commercial sale
iv. the number of units sold in the preceding two years with complete purchaser details
v. details of any third-party sellers/vendors listing similar equipment vi. steps taken to discontinue the sale and prevent recurrence, and
vii. acomplete list of similar RF/wireless transmitting equipment offered for sale on its website.
9. In response, Xboom submitted a reply dated 25.02.2026, wherein it submitted that:
i. the platform operates on an enquiry-based model and does not undertake open marketplace retail sale of sensitive or restricted equipment
ii. the listings were intended for institutional visibility and engagement only with verified Government agencies, Armed Forces, and authorised defence establishments, and that the platform does not share technical specifications, pricing, or transactional details with unauthorised individuals or civilian buyers
iii. upon receipt of the notice, it had undertaken immediate steps including suspension of the concerned listings, initiation of an internal compliance review, re-verification of applicable licensing requirements, and strengthening of internal product categorisation and screening protocols, and
iv. any non-compliance was inadvertent and without intent to contravene statutory provisions, and that it remained committed to furnishing the information sought.
10. On examination of the said reply, CCPA noted that Xboom had furnished none of the specific documents or information called for under the Show Cause Notice, namely, procurement/import sources, regulatory approvals, units sold, purchaser details, or third- party vendor particulars. The reply also did not address why the restricted products were made publicly listed and searchable at all, even under a claimed ‘enquiry-based’ model, without any visible disclosure of the licensing restriction on the listing itself. CCPA accordingly found the reply prima facie unsatisfactory and insufficient to discharge the burden placed on Xboom, and was satisfied, in terms of Section 19 of the Act, that a prima facie case of violation of consumer rights and unfair trade practice existed warranting detailed investigation.
11. Accordingly, vide letter dated 01.04.2026, CCPA referred the matter to the Director General (Investigation), CCPA, for detailed investigation into, inter alia: whether Xboom listed/hosted/advertised restricted wireless transmitting devices and the duration, nature and visibility of such listings, whether the enquiry-based model constitutes an ‘offer for sale’, ‘advertisement’ or ‘promotion’ under the Act, whether any enquiries, communications or engagements took place with prospective buyers, including verification mechanisms claimed by the platform, whether any backend commercial arrangements, vendor linkages or revenue models existed, whether adequate statutory disclosures were made or visible to users, and whether Xboom’s conduct amounts to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act.
12. The Investigation Wing issued a detailed notice dated 14.05.2026 to Xboom, seeking, inter alia, documentary evidence relating to the licensing status, units sold with purchaser-wise particulars in tabulated form, statutory approvals obtained, backend commercial/vendor arrangements, and a complete tabulated list of all drone-related products advertised on the platform along with their certification/approval status. Xboom did not respond to the said notice.
13. In view of the absence of any response, the Investigation Wing issued a Final Reminder dated 21.05.2026, granting a revised deadline of 25.05.2026, for submission of the requisite information and documents. Xboom did not furnish any response or documentary evidence even in response to the Final Reminder.
14. The Director General (Investigation) submitted following findings in its Investigation Report dated 04.06.2026:
i. The Company did not furnish any response to either the Notice dated 14.05.2026 or the Final Reminder dated 21.05.2026, reflecting wilful non-compliance and disregard towards the regulatory authority.
ii. The Company had also furnished incomplete documentary evidence before CCPA in its earlier reply dated 25.02.2026, in particular failing to disclose the number of units sold, details of purchasers, and information relating to applicable licensing or regulatory requirements, hindering a comprehensive assessment of the transactions and regulatory compliance associated with the products.
iii. Although Xboom removed the listings of the six identified Anti-Drone/Jammer products from its platform after receipt of the Show Cause Notice, such removal does not absolve it of liability for the period during which these products were available for purchase/enquiry on the website, thereby exposing consumers to legal and safety risks.
iv. Xboom continues to list/host various other categories of drones, including imported drones, without furnishing any documentary evidence regarding licences, certifications, approvals, or other regulatory authorisations applicable to such products.
v. Even after issuance of the Show Cause Notice, Xboom did not make appropriate modifications to the specifications or descriptions of other drone-related products listed on its platform, such listings continue to lack disclosures regarding the existence of licences, certifications, approvals, or statutory/regulatory requirements, thereby adversely affecting consumers’ ability to make informed purchasing decisions.
vi. Xboom’s assertion that it operates strictly on an enquiry-based model was found to be inconsistent with its website, as certain drone products were found to be available through an “Add to Cart” option, enabling procurement without any apparent pre-screening or verification mechanism, raising the question as to how the company ensures sales only to authorised end-users.
15. Based on the above, the Investigation Report concluded that Xboom is in violation of Sections 2(9), 2(28) and 2(47) of the Act, has acted contrary to the CCPA Advisory dated 29.04.2022, and also in violation of the applicable statutory/regulatory framework governing restricted wireless/radio communication equipment (including the Telecommunications Act, 2023, the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the MHA Guidelines dated 10.03.2023, and the Cabinet Secretariat Guidelines for Procurement, Possession and Use of Jammers, 2025), and is in violation of Rules 4(3) and 4(6) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
16. The Investigation Report was shared with Xboom for its comments, and the matter was listed for hearing on 24.06.2026, at which the Company’s representative sought an extension. The matter was thereafter listed for hearing on 14.07.2026.
17. Prior to the hearing scheduled on 14.07.2026, the opposite party filed detailed Objections dated 13.07.2026 to the Investigation Report, the objections filed by the opposite party are as under:
i. As a preliminary objection, Xboom contended that the Report violated the principle of audi alteram partem, as it drew an adverse inference of ‘wilful non-compliance’ from the Company’s alleged non-response to the Investigation Wing’s emails dated 14.05.2026 and 21.05.2026, receipt of which was categorically denied by the Company, attributing the same to a possible technical or administrative error, and pointing to its prompt reply dated 25.02.2026 to the initial Show Cause Notice as evidence of its consistent cooperation.
ii. On merits, Xboom contended that the six Restricted Products were listed exclusively under an ‘enquiry-based’ model, without any “Add to Cart” option, pricing, or payment gateway, with the “Enquire on WhatsApp” feature being a deliberate multi-stage verification mechanism, and that the “Add to Cart” screenshots relied upon in the Report pertained to a separate category of consumer/enterprise drones governed by the DGCA framework, not to the Restricted Products.
iii. Xboom submitted that the absence of explicit mention of every licence/regulation on the product description page does not, by itself, amount to a misleading advertisement or unfair trade practice, particularly where the products themselves are legal for public sale, and that it possessed requisite documentation which it would have furnished had the Investigation Wing’s communications been duly received.
iv. Xboom submitted that no sale of Restricted Products to any private individual or unauthorised entity had taken place, that the Report’s finding of ‘incomplete documentary evidence’ wrongly presumed that such sales had occurred, and that its enquiry-based model and internal screening protocol were specifically designed to prevent any such sale.
v. Xboom submitted that its voluntary suspension of the Restricted Product listings upon receipt of the Show Cause Notice ought to be treated as a mitigating, bona fide remedial measure demonstrating commitment to compliance, and not as a ground for adverse inference or as failing to absolve it of liability.
vi. By way of additional submissions, Xboom contended that: (i) the proceedings rest on the mere visibility of listings and not on any actual prohibited transaction, and that no instance of actual consumer harm has been identified, (ii) the Restricted Product listings, being devoid of price and direct purchase mechanism and targeted at a specialised, pre-qualified clientele, do not constitute an `advertisement’ or ‘offer for sale’ to the general public within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act, (iii) the Company plays a role in strengthening national security by providing authorised Indian defence and law-enforcement agencies access to counter-drone technology, and (iv) the Company has, at all times, acted in consonance with the CCPA Advisory dated 29.04.2022 and has not violated the Telecommunications Act, 2023, the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, or MHA/Cabinet Secretariat guidelines, as no sale or transfer of Restricted Products to unauthorised persons occurred.
vii. Xboom accordingly prayed that the findings of the Investigation Report be set aside, that it be granted an opportunity of personal hearing to furnish documentary evidence, and that the present proceedings be dropped and the file closed.
18. CCPA noted that the communications dated 14.05.2026 and 21.05.2026 were sent by the Investigation Wing (‘DG’) to [email protected], the same email address at which the Show Cause Notice had earlier been served and to which Xboom had itself responded on 25.02.2026. Notwithstanding Xboom’s claim of non-receipt, the Company was thereafter afforded repeated and specific opportunities to place its submissions and supporting documents on record, as follows:
i. at the hearing held on 14.07.2026, Xboom’s representative sought additional time, citing the absence of the Company’s senior representative,
ii. at the subsequent hearing held on 31.07.2026, Xboom was granted a further opportunity to file copies of relevant licences by 04.08.2026, and
iii. by email dated 03.08.2026, Xboom sought, and was granted, a two-week adjournment on the ground that the requisite documents were not readily available.
Despite these repeated opportunities, Xboom did not furnish any such documents. The objection based on violation of audi alteram partem is accordingly rejected.
19. Section 2(1) of the Act defines “advertisement” to mean “any audio or visual publicity, representation, endorsement or pronouncement made by means of light, sound, smoke, gas, print, electronic media, Internet or website and includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper, invoice or such other documents.”
20. Applying this definition to the objections at paragraphs 17 (ii) to (v), the Authority finds that: (i) the enquiry-based mechanism adopted by Xboom does not take the Restricted Product listings outside the statutory definition of “advertisement,” since the publication of a representation through a website is, by itself, sufficient to attract the definition, (ii) Xboom has failed to produce any documentation, sales records, enquiry logs, or screening records to substantiate its claims of possessing the requisite licences or of no unauthorised sale having occurred; and (iii) the delisting of the Restricted Products occurred only after receipt of the Show Cause Notice, and not on Xboom’s own initiative prior to any regulatory intervention. Such post-notice action does not extinguish liability for publication of the listings during the relevant period. The objections at paragraphs 17 (ii) to (v) are accordingly rejected.
21. The absence of a completed sale or demonstrated consumer harm does not affect the finding above, since publication of the listings itself constitutes the advertisement/offer under Section 2(1), regardless of whether a transaction followed. Xboom’s submissions at paragraph 17(vi), in substance, amount to an admission that it did host, list, and advertise for sale highly regulated products, including Anti-Drone Systems, Drone Jammers, and GPS Jammers, while withholding material information regarding the licences, authorisations, and regulatory clearances applicable to such products. Having done so, Xboom cannot take refuge in the contention that the listings were enquiry-based, targeted at a specialised clientele, or did not result in a completed transaction. Xboom’s role in the sale, hosting, listing, and advertisement of such products to authorised agencies concerns the character of its end-users, and does not detract from the finding that the products were advertised and listed for sale to the public at large without the requisite disclosures. For these reasons, the submissions at paragraph 17(vi) do not warrant interference with the findings of the Investigation Report, and since no ground has been made out to disturb those findings, the consequential prayer at paragraph 17(vii) for setting aside the Report and closure of proceedings is rejected.
22. On 18.08.2026, the opposite party filed on record a copy of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.11.2025 (‘MoU’), executed between Xboom Utilities and one Mr. Manish Kumar, as its sole supporting documentary evidence in response to the Authority’s specific direction dated 31.07.2026 to furnish copies of relevant licences. The salient terms of the MoU are that:
i. Mr. Manish Kumar is stated to be engaged in the business of selling, and providing research & development and technical advisory for, Anti-Drone Systems to Armed Forces and authorised Government departments,
ii. the MoU establishes a non-binding ‘Pilot Phase’ (Clause 1) under which Xboom would list Manish Kumar’s anti-drone products, sourced and provided by him, on its platform and transmit resultant enquiries/leads to him for fulfilment within authorised Government agencies (Clause 2),
iii. under Clauses 5.1 and 5.2, it is Mr. Manish Kumar, and not Xboom, who represents and warrants that his customers/clients hold the requisite certifications and licences, and that the products listed are legitimate products that can lawfully be sold in India,
iv. under Clause 8, Mr. Manish Kumar is required to indemnify Xboom against, inter alia, any claim arising from breach of his representations/warranties or violation of applicable law, and
v. under Clause 10.1, the MoU is expressly non-binding save for limited clauses relating to confidentiality, indemnification, governing law and notices, and the MoU records a 12-month term from 12.11.2025, terminable on 30 days’ notice.
23. The hearing was held on 19.08.2026, in which Adv. Amrita Sharma appeared on behalf of Xboom and majorly relied upon the MoU dated 12.11.2025 as demonstrative of a compliant, licence-based commercial arrangement underlying the impugned listings.
24. At the said hearing dated 19.08.2026, the Authority specifically queried counsel for Xboom regarding the bona fides and verifiability of the MoU dated 12.11.2025, and directed Xboom to furnish, within a stipulated time, particulars including: (i) the GSTIN of Mr. Manish Kumar, (ii) his principal place of business and complete address, (iii) the qualifications of Mr. Manish Kumar who is engaged in conducting the research and development/technical advisory referred to in the MoU, (iv) the due diligence exercise, if any, undertaken by Xboom prior to entering into the MoU with Mr. Manish Kumar, and (v) copies of the registration/incorporation and identity documents of Mr. Manish Kumar and/or his business. Despite the said specific direction, no response, clarification, or document in respect of any of the above particulars has been received from Xboom till date.
25. Also, although the MoU is dated 12.11.2025 which is prior to the Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2026., it was neither referred to nor placed on record at any of the earlier stages of these proceedings, including in Xboom’s reply dated 25.02.2026 to the Show Cause Notice, and was produced for the first time only on 18.08.2026, pursuant to the Authority’s specific direction dated 31.07.2026 for submission of any additional documents. On being queried, counsel for Xboom stated that the document was furnished upon being called for by the Authority, without offering any satisfactory explanation for its non-disclosure at any earlier stage.
26. The Authority considers it necessary to record its serious concern regarding the manner in which the queries recorded in paragraph 24 above were met. Counsel appearing for Xboom was unable, at the hearing itself, to state even the basic particulars of the party with whom Xboom claims to have entered into a formal commercial arrangement for the supply of national-security-sensitive equipment, namely, the GSTIN, registered place of business, or professional qualifications of Mr. Manish Kumar among other things. This does not appear to be a technical omission. Had Xboom, in fact, exercised the due diligence expected of an entity dealing in restricted, security-sensitive equipment before executing the MoU dated 12.11.2025, such basic particulars of its counterparty would ordinarily have been within its ready knowledge and on its own file, and would have been placed before the Authority as a matter of course, without any need for a specific direction. The inability of Xboom, and its counsel, to furnish or even speak to these basic facts at the hearing itself gives rise to a serious and reasonable doubt as to whether any genuine due diligence was ever undertaken by Xboom prior to entering into the MoU, and correspondingly casts doubt on the MoU’s reliability as evidence of a bona fide, verified compliance arrangement, as opposed to a document produced in these proceedings without the underlying diligence it purports to reflect.
27. Consequently, since the general public at large is able to view representations that these devices can “neutralise” and disrupt drone communications, GPS and video feeds, without any accompanying disclosure that lawful possession or use of such devices is restricted to authorised Government/security agencies and requires prior statutory authorization, the absence of which attracts penal consequences under Section 42(3)(a) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The listings deliberately conceal important information within the meaning of Section 2(28)(iv) of the Act, and convey an implied representation that the products are freely and lawfully procurable, which, if made by the seller, would itself constitute an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(28)(iii) read with Section 2(47) of the Act.
28. The Authority finds the MoU dated 12.11.2025, filed on 18.08.2026, insufficient to establish regulatory compliance, for the following reasons:
i. the MoU is not itself a licence, certificate, or Government authorisation of any description, and does not purport to be one,
ii. under Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 of the MoU, it is Mr. Manish Kumar not Xboom who represents and warrants possession of requisite certifications/licences, yet no such certification or licence of Mr. Manish Kumar has been produced, nor has any evidence been placed on record of actual procurement of the listed products by a government agency pursuant to this arrangement,
iii. the MoU does not address Xboom’s own direct statutory obligations as the entity that owns, operates, and hosts the website through which these products are marketed to the public at large to ensure that mandatory disclosures are made and that regulatory compliance is demonstrable at the point of listing itself, rather than deferred to a downstream vendor, and
iv. as recorded at paragraph 24 above, counsel for the opposite party was unable, even at the hearing, to furnish the most basic particulars of Mr. Manish Kumar, such as his GSTIN, place of business, or professional qualifications. This inability is difficult to reconcile with any genuine due diligence having preceded the MoU, and further undermines the document’s reliability as proof of a bona fide, verified arrangement.
29. The MoU evidences a private, largely non-binding, inter se commercial arrangement for prospective risk allocation between Xboom and a third-party vendor whose basic credentials remain unverified even before this Authority. Such an arrangement, being neither a statutory authorisation nor independently verified, cannot substitute for actual compliance with the applicable licensing and disclosure framework. Accordingly, the MoU does not constitute, or evidence, compliance with the statutory and regulatory framework, nor does it answer the specific informational requirements raised in the Show Cause Notice or the Investigation Wing’s notice.
30. Section 2(28) of the Act defines ‘misleading advertisement’, in relation to any product or service, to mean 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.
31. Further, Section 2(47) of the Act defines ‘unfair trade practice’ to mean a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, including, inter alia, representing that goods have approval, characteristics, uses or benefits which such goods do not have. On a plain application of the above provisions to the facts of the present case, Xboom’s listings, by omitting any reference to the mandatory licensing regime while marketing the capability and availability of restricted jamming equipment, fall squarely within Sections 2(28)(iii), 2(28)(iv) and 2(47) of the Act.
32. Rule 4(3) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 provides that “no e-commerce entity shall adopt any unfair trade practice in the course of its business or otherwise”, and Rule 4(6) thereof requires that, where an e-commerce entity offers imported goods for sale, it shall clearly mention the name and details of the importer from whom such goods have been procured. Xboom has neither disclosed the source/importer of the six Restricted Products, nor the import/regulatory particulars of the wider range of imported drones it continues to sell through its platform. Xboom is accordingly in violation of Rules 4(3) and 4(6) of the said Rules.
33. Having regard to the foregoing, the Authority records the following findings:
i. Xboom is in violation of Sections 2(9), 2(28) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in respect of its listing/hosting of the six Restricted Products (X-Mini, X-Radar XK2, X-Eye, X-Gun XK4, RF-Patrol XK2 and XGaurd) without disclosure of the applicable licensing/regulatory restrictions.
ii. Xboom’s conduct is contrary to the CCPA Advisory dated 29.04.2022.
iii. The MoU dated 12.11.2025, filed on 18.08.2026, does not remedy this deficiency nor has Xboom furnished any of the further particulars regarding the said MoU called for at the hearing dated 19.08.2026.
34. Section 21(1) of the Act empowers the CCPA, where it is satisfied after investigation that an advertisement is false or misleading and is prejudicial to the interest of consumers, to issue directions to discontinue or modify such advertisement. Section 21(2) further empowers the CCPA to impose, by order, a penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees, and for every subsequent contravention, a penalty which may extend to fifty lakh rupees. Section 21(7) of the Act provides that, while determining the penalty, the Authority may have due regard to:
i. the population and area impacted or affected by such offence,
ii. the frequency and duration of such offence and
iii. the vulnerability of the class of persons likely to be adversely affected by such offence.
35. In view of the above, in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 10, 20 and 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, CCPA hereby issues the following directions:
i. Under Section 21 of the Act, the CCPA is empowered, for a first contravention, to impose a penalty extending up to ten lakh rupees. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the violations recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, the Authority considers it appropriate to impose the maximum penalty prescribed for a first contravention. The opposite party is accordingly directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only).
ii. The Opposite party shall not list, host, advertise, promote, or otherwise offer for sale, whether through an enquiry-based model or otherwise, any Anti-Drone System, Drone Jammer, GPS Jammer, or any other wireless jamming/anti-drone equipment on its platform, unless and until it: (i) obtains and prominently displays, on each such listing, valid and verifiable statutory approvals/licences (including, as applicable, WPC/DoT Equipment Type Approval, DGFT licence, MHA/Cabinet Secretariat authorisation, and licences under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933), (ii) implements and intimates to CCPA a verifiable KYC/end-use authorisation mechanism restricting access to and fulfilment of such listings exclusively to authenticated Government, defence or law-enforcement end-users, and (iii) prominently discloses, on each such listing, the licensing requirement and the penal consequence of unauthorised possession or use under the applicable laws.
iii. The Opposite Party shall submit a compliance report to the CCPA on the above directions within 15 days from the date of this Order.
