In re Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (Central Consumer Protection Authority)
In matter of Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (Sale of Agro-Chemical Product, namely “Cyclosinone Herbicide”)
Summary: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) held Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. responsible for misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice arising from the listing, advertising and sale of an unregistered agro-chemical product described as “Cyclosinone Herbicide” on its online marketplace. The proceedings originated from information forwarded by the Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare on a complaint by the Crop Care Federation of India. The complaint stated that “Cyclosinone Herbicide” was not included in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 1968, that its retail package did not disclose necessary regulatory information and that claims such as “low toxicity”, “Eco-Safe Weeds Terminator Lawn”, “Farmer and Gardener Approved Weed Killer”, “Long Lasting Protection” and “Safe Weed Control for Lawns” could mislead consumers.
The investigation found that 4,501 listings of the impugned product had been made and 5,47,223 units had been sold through the online marketplace, having an aggregate sale value of ₹11,57,89,968/-. The CCPA considered Flipkart’s contention that it operated only as a marketplace intermediary, that sellers independently created product listings and that the platform did not manufacture, sell, stock, exhibit for sale or distribute the product. Flipkart also relied on intermediary protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
The CCPA rejected the contention that marketplace status by itself insulated the platform from consumer-protection obligations. It noted that Rule 10E of the Insecticides (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 requires operators of e-commerce entities, before engaging a licensee for online sale of insecticides, to verify the validity of the licence issued by the concerned Licensing Officer. The Authority also referred to the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It held that contractual declarations or self-certifications obtained from third-party sellers could not substitute for statutory due diligence.
The CCPA further observed that Flipkart possessed technological and administrative control enabling it to identify, restrict and remove listings, disable seller accounts and implement keyword-level blocking. Its subsequent removal of the impugned listings and specific blocking of “Cyclosinone” demonstrated such capability but did not erase liability for the earlier conduct. Referring also to Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215 and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395, the Authority emphasised the responsibilities associated with active marketplace participation and hazardous substances.
The CCPA concluded that the impugned claims constituted misleading advertisements and unfair trade practice affecting consumers as a class. It directed Flipkart to discontinue the false and misleading advertisement immediately, conduct a self-audit of its platform to prevent listings contrary to law or hazardous to consumer life and safety, pay the maximum ₹10 lakh penalty prescribed for a first violation, and submit a compliance report within 15 days.
Cases Discussed
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 — considered in relation to Section 79 intermediary safe harbour, actual knowledge and due-diligence obligations.
- Dr. Zaheer Ahmad v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) 11711/2018 — referred to regarding judicial restriction on online availability of substances whose sale is subject to licensing or regulatory control.
- Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215 — relied upon regarding circumstances in which an online marketplace acts beyond passive hosting and assumes an active role.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 — referred to for the principle of heightened and non-delegable responsibility concerning inherently hazardous activities and substances.
Alternative SEO Titles
Flipkart Faces ₹10 Lakh Penalty for Misleading Herbicide Listings: CCPA
Marketplace Status Cannot Defeat Consumer Protection Duties: CCPA Penalises Flipkart
CCPA Penalises Flipkart for Sale and Advertising of Unregistered Herbicide
Flipkart Must Verify Regulated Product Listings and Seller Compliance: CCPA
CCPA Orders Flipkart Self-Audit After Misleading Cyclosinone Herbicide Listings
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY
1. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (hereinafter referred to as CCPA) has been established under section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to regulate matters relating to violation of rights of consumer, unfair trade practices, false and misleading advertisement which are prejudicial to the interest of public and consumers and to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumer as a class.
2. The CCPA, in exercise of its statutory mandate under Section 18(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act), is entrusted with the function of preventing unfair trade practices and ensuring that no false or misleading advertisement is made in respect of any goods or services, and further to ensure that no advertisement of goods or services is issued in contravention of the provisions of the said Act or the rules and regulations framed thereunder.
3. It came to the notice of the CCPA vide letter dated 18.02.2026 received from the Department of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare (Plant Protection Division), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, wherein it had forwarded a complaint dated 22.01.2026 submitted by the Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI) regarding the sale and advertisement of an unregistered herbicide, namely “Cyclosinone Herbicide” through e-commerce platforms and digital media platforms.
3.1. The aforesaid letter further stated that the unregistered herbicide, namely “Cyclosinone Herbicide” (impugned product hereinafter referred to as unregistered herbicide) is not included in the Schedule of Insecticides Act, 1968. Additionally, the letter stated that only those pesticides (insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and rodenticide) which are duly registered with Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIB&RC) under the Insecticides Act, 1968 for the use in the country are allowed to be sold in the domestic market through authorized license holder only. Thus, the sale of such unregistered and illegally imported pesticides, pose serious risk to farmers, consumers and the environment.
4. Inter-alia, the complaint of Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI) further alleged that:
4.1. The sale of unregistered herbicide cyclosinone was available for sale though e-commerce platforms such as Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party)
4.2. The retail package carries no information whatsoever about the product whether in compliance with the Rules of Insecticides Act, 1968.
4.3. The label claimed product as low-toxicity which is a self-certified claim. The e-commerce platform sell this pesticide as an eco-friendly pesticide.
4.4. That there is no herbicide / chemical registered officially anywhere in the world under the nomenclature “Cyclosinone”.
5. Accordingly, on the basis of contents of the aforesaid Letter, the CCPA took cognizance of the matter and initiated a preliminary inquiry. CCPA examined various e-commerce platforms including that of the Opposite Party and, upon such analysis, found prima facie that the Opposite Party was advertising, listing, offering for sale, and selling the unregistered impugned product under the brand name “Cyclosinone Herbicide.” The findings of the said preliminary inquiry indicated that:
5.1. The objective of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals, and for matters connected therewith.
Accordingly Section 13 (1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 stipulates that:
Any person desiring to manufacture or to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any insecticide [or to undertake commercial pest control operations with the use of any insecticide], may make an application to the licensing officer for the grant of a license.
Moreover, Section 17 (1) states that:
No person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, import or manufacture:
(a) any misbranded insecticide;
(b) any insecticide the sale, distribution or use of which is for the time being prohibited under section 27.
5.2. The Insecticides (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 clearly stipulates under Rule 10(E) for Sale of Insecticides through e-commerce entity that:
A licensee, during the currency of license, may undertake sale of any insecticide through e-commerce entity for supply of insecticides to the door step of the farmers and the licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under for the time being in force:
Provided that the operators of e-commerce entity before engaging the licensee for sale of insecticide through online portal, shall verify the validity of the licence issued by the concerned Licensing Officer of the State.
Provided further that the operators of e-commerce entity and licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 notified in the Gazette of India vide G.S.R No. 462(E) dated 23rd July, 2020 and further subsequent amendments (if any).
5.3. Rule 5 (2) of Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020 stipulates liabilities of marketplace e-commerce platforms that:
Every marketplace e-commerce entity shall require sellers through an undertaking to ensure that descriptions, images, and other content pertaining to goods or services on their platform is accurate and corresponds directly with the appearance, nature, quality, purpose and other general features of such good or service.
5.4. Further it was observed that the label of the unregistered impugned product clearly claimed 5% formulation granules and low toxicity. Additionally, the Opposite Party made the following claims (Annexure: A)
i. Farmer and Gardener Approved Weed Killer.
ii. Eco-Safe Weeds Terminator Lawn.
iii. Long Lasting Protection.
iv. Safe Weed Control for Lawns.
From the perusal of the Preliminary Inquiry Report it was clear that the said unregistered impugned product was being offered for sale without disclosing active ingredient, its precise chemical identity, any verifiable licence number with its validity and mandatory disclosures regarding it hazardous or the basis of above claims such as “farmer and gardener approved weed killer, eco-safe weeds terminator lawn, safe weed control for lawns” etc. and if any Principal Authorization Certificate was obtained for sale or not.
Thus, it appeared that the misleading claims made by the Opposite Party could deceive consumers into believing that the impugned product is in compliance with the laws made for the time being in force, however, which was not the case.
6. Considering the above findings of the preliminary inquiry report, a Notice dated 30.03.2026 was issued to the Opposite Party to submit response within 15 days along with necessary supporting documents regarding the date of initial listing and duration of the unregistered impugned product, total number of listings both active and inactive listings along with total number of units sold, along with the corresponding sale value from January 2024 till date, complete details of all sellers who had listed it and whether the Opposite Party has verified the statutory compliance of the said product with respect to disclosure of the active ingredient and its precise chemical identity in the advertisements and product listings, as required under applicable laws. Whether the Opposite Party has any mechanism in place to scrutinize and prevent listing, advertisement and sale of impugned product on the absence of statutory compliance without ensuring the seller’s requisite License / authorization. Further, whether the requisite due diligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 were duly undertaken and implemented.
7. In response to the above Notice, the Opposite Party vide email dated 15.04.2026 submitted that:
7.1. The Opposite Party operates as a intermediary marketplace-based model of e-commerce through its Platform, which merely provides an information technology platform to facilitate buyers and sellers on a digital and electronic network and all products on the platform are sold by third-party “sellers”. Additionally, the Opposite Party does not sell, store, supply, promote for sale or advertise any products on its platform. As such, Opposite Party is neither the seller, nor manufacturer, of the products bought and sold on its platform. It merely facilitates the direct exchange between the buyer and seller on the platform.
7.2. To onboard a seller on the Opposite Party’s Platform, it is a mandatory prerequisite that the seller consents to the Flipkart Sellers’ Terms of Use (including the sellers’ declaration and undertakings thereunder), as well as to conducting its operations on Opposite Party’s Platform with all necessary compliances and applicable laws and in accordance with the training imparted to the sellers. The onus of such compliance and the responsibility for the sellers’ declaration and undertaking lie upon the sellers entirely.
7.3. To list a product on Opposite Party’s platform, the seller is provided with various data fields to insert the requisite information about each product. Once these data fields are filled by the seller, the product goes live for sale on its Platform directly displaying the data entries incorporated by the seller. Inter-alia, the opposite Party has taken Steps to disable and remove the listings pertaining to “Cyclosinone Herbicide” from its platform.
7.4. The jurisdiction of the CCPA is confined to addressing demonstrable consumer harm arising from unfair trade practices or misleading advertisements. In the present case, the Notice does not establish any proximate consumer harm attributable to Flipkart, but instead seeks to enforce regulatory compliance under a separate statute. Such an approach effectively converts the CCPA into a sectoral regulator, which is beyond its statutory mandate.
7.5. The product described as “Cyclosinone Herbicide” does not fall within the regulatory ambit of the Insecticides Act, 1968, in the first place. The Opposite Party as an intermediary marketplace, does not undertake any independent classification or scientific verification of products listed by third-party sellers. It operates on the basis of representations and disclosures made by such sellers, who are contractually obligated to ensure full compliance with applicable laws. There exists no statutory obligation on any intermediary to determine whether a product corresponds to a recognized chemical formulation under specialized regulatory regimes.
7.6. The numbers of the sellers who listed the impugned product, including their registered names, addresses, and onboarding credentials as available with Flipkart, are 4501. It was submitted that all such sellers were onboarded in accordance with Flipkart’s standard onboarding process and had agreed to the Seller Terms of Use.
7.7. That identical listings of Cyclosinone Herbicide had previously been automatically blocked when attempted under relevant regulated categories. Additionally, after the Notice of the CCPA the Opposite Party removed all identified listings of the impugned product, strengthening its keyword-based blocking systems by specifically flagging “Cyclosinone” across categories.
8. The reply submitted by the Opposite Party was examined by the CCPA and based on it CCPA was satisfied that there exists a prima-facia case of violation of consumer rights, misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice which lead to the necessity of further scrutiny.
9. Thereafter, CCPA, vide letter dated 14.05.2026 forwarded the matter to DG (Investigation) for detailed investigation.
10. The investigation report dated 23.07.2026 was received from DG (Investigation) wherein the following were submitted:
10.1. It was observed that the Opposite Party continued to host and facilitate the sale of impugned product on its platform up to March 2026 without ensuring compliance with mandatory regulatory safeguards applicable to the sale of such regulated substance. The impugned listings neither disclose its active ingredient, nor its precise chemical identity, any verifiable license number with its validity and mandatory disclosures regarding it hazardous or the basis of above claims and if any Principal Authorization Certificate is obtained or not.
10.2. The omission to disclose aforesaid material information specifically regarding statutory licensing requirements, its active ingredient and its precise chemical identity deprive consumers of essential information required to make informed purchasing decisions and exposes them to legal and safety risks.
10.3. The Opposite Party has subsequently removed the impugned listings from its platform and also strengthened its keyword based blocking systems by flagging “Cyclosinone” across categories. However, this does not absolve it of its liability for the period during which the product was available for sale.
10.4. During the investigation, comments were sought from the “Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Plant Protection Division, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare” regarding the legal status of the impugned product marketed as “Cyclosinone Herbicide.” The department, inter alia, vide letter dated 02.06.2026 stated as follows:
i. Insecticides/pesticides are inherently toxic in nature as they are designed to develop to kill or combat the insects, diseases and weeds hence its import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use are regulated under the Insecticide acts, 1968 and Insecticides Rules 1971 with a view to prevent risk to human being or animals and matters connected therewith.
ii. There is no chemical as “Cyclosinone” included in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 1968. However, the product “Cyclosinone” claimed to be “Herbicide” is being sold through e-portals without disclosing chemical name of its active ingredient and composition.
iii. The statement of the Opposite Party that “Cyclosinone” does not exist as a registered compound is legally untenable. The product “Cyclosinone” is being actively marketed and sold via its platform with explicit claims of being an “Herbicide” falls squarely within this functional clarification. Hence, it is currently being marketed illegally because it bypasses the mandatory safety, bio efficacy, quality, legal checks required under the Insecticides Act, 1968.
10.5. Opposite Party does not undertake any independent verification to ascertain whether sellers are complying with the mandatory legal requirements, such as the need for any licenses or other regulatory approvals, wherever applicable. Instead, the company relies primarily upon the information furnished by sellers under the Flipkart Sellers Terms of Use. However, sellers may submit false or incomplete declarations in order to list their products. Therefore, relying only on self-declaration is inadequate. It reflects gross negligence in the Opposite Party’s seller onboarding procedures, product / content moderation mechanisms.
10.6. Opposite Party has indicated the total Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) generated from 2024 onwards. Though it contended that it neither stores nor sells product directly, it has derived revenue from the sale of the impugned product mentioned in the SCN. In these circumstances, the company cannot completely shift entire responsibility onto sellers by solely relying on the “Flipkart Sellers Terms of Use” clause that places liability for non-compliance on the sellers. Permitting regulated products to be listed without adequate scrutiny while simultaneously generating revenue from listing-related services raises serious concerns regarding compliance and accountability. The duty of due diligence cannot be contractually waived.
10.7. The company’s reliance on its status as an intermediary is not sufficient to avoid responsibility. As a marketplace e-commerce entity facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers, the company’s required to exercise reasonable due diligence and oversight over listings hosted on its platform.
10.8. Henceforth, a case relating to the violation of consumer rights and misleading advertisement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is established.
11. In view of the findings in the DG (Investigation) Report, the CCPA vide letter dated 29.07.2026 shared the investigation report with the Opposite Party to furnish their comments, if any. Thereafter, a hearing was scheduled on 17.08.2026.
12. The Opposite Party vide letter dated 07.08.2026 submitted its following comments on the DG Investigation Report:
12.1. That there was no visit to the Company by the Investigating Officer, that no document or sample was seized, and that no test was performed on any sample. In the absence of a single sample, a single analysis, or a single Analyst’s report, there exists no material whatsoever upon which any authority, far less the CCPA, could conclude that the impugned product is an insecticide, that it is hazardous, or that its sale required a license.
12.2. Section 13(1) of the Insecticides Act operates only upon a person desiring to manufacture or to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any insecticide. The Opposite Party does none of these things. The Opposite Party as an intermediary does not manufacture, sell, stock, exhibit for sale or distribute any product whatsoever. Further, marketing connotes active promotion, advertisement and commercialization. The Opposite Party provided only the technology infrastructure upon which an independent third-party seller listed the product of its own volition. The deliberate deceit of the seller can neither be placed upon the Opposite Party nor be held liable for its failure to disclose information which it does not possess and which has been actively concealed from it.
12.3. Rule 10E of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (“Insecticides Rules”) does not apply. It requires an e-commerce operator to verify the license of a seller before engaging that seller to sell an insecticide online. The rule therefore applies only where the product is an “insecticide” under Section 3(e) of the Insecticides Act and the e-commerce operator has engaged a licensee to sell it. In the present matter, neither condition is met. “Cyclosinone” is not included in the Schedule to the Act, and the Opposite Party did not engage any licensee to sell an insecticide.
12.4. The seller independently listed the product as an “organic seed herb” under the “Plant Seed” category. Since the conditions necessary to trigger Rule 10E of the Insecticides Rules were absent, no breach of that rule could arise. Therefore, for these reasons, the conclusion at paragraph 10(E) of the Investigation Report is without jurisdiction, contrary to the mandatory scheme of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
12.5. The Office Memorandum dated June 02, 2026 states only that “there is no chemical as Cyclosinone included in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act”. The absence of a substance from a statutory schedule does not, ipso facto, render it hazardous to life or property.
12.6. The Opposite Party neither created nor authored the impugned listing; it made no representation concerning the nature, composition or characteristics of the product; it did not endorse those representations; and it did not hold the product out as an “organic seed herb”. The only deceptive practice disclosed by the Investigation Report is that of the seller, who deliberately mischaracterised the product and placed it in the “Plant Seed” category in order to circumvent Flipkart’s compliance controls. A deceptive practice adopted by the seller cannot, merely because the listing appeared on the Opposite Party’s Platform, be transformed into a practice adopted by it.
12.7. Rule 5(2) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 requires a marketplace e-commerce entity to “require sellers through an undertaking to ensure that the descriptions, images, and other content pertaining to goods or services on their platform is accurate and corresponds directly with the appearance, nature, quality, purpose and other general features of such good or service”. The obligation is to require an undertaking, not to verify each listing. Flipkart’s Terms of Use of Sellers contain precisely such undertakings and representations which qualify, purpose and are agreed upon by a registered seller. The obligation under Rule 5(2) stands discharged.
12.8. Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“Intermediary Rules”) explicitly mandate that intermediaries, are obligated to take appropriate action upon receiving ‘actual knowledge’ in the form of an ‘order by a court’ or a government notification. This principle was clearly established in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
12.9. In the present case, Flipkart had no prior knowledge or notice of the alleged unlawfulness of the impugned listing. Upon receipt of the Show Cause Notice dated March 30, 2026, it has promptly removed all identified listings pertaining to “Cyclosinone Herbicide” and the impugned product and incorporated “Cyclosinone” into its keyword-based blocking mechanisms across relevant product categories. No such identified listing has remained active since late March 2026. Flipkart has further strengthened its compliance controls for detecting and preventing the listing of regulated products, including insecticides, pesticides, and agrochemicals, under unrelated or inappropriate categories, including by enhancing its automated and manual review mechanisms. In these circumstances, there is no continuing mischief requiring any further coercive or corrective directions against Flipkart, nor any legal or factual basis to deny it the statutory protection available under Section 79.
13. During the hearing held on 17.08.2026, Ld. Counsels Shri Dheeraj Nair, Shri Sahir Seth appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party and submitted the following:
13.1. That the Impugned Product did not fall within the definition of an “insecticide” contemplated under Section 3(e) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, as the said product is not a substance specified in the Insecticides Act. Accordingly, the statutory framework applicable to substances falling within the definition of “insecticide” could not, in the absence of the requisite statutory ingredients, be mechanically extended to the Impugned Product.
13.2. Section 79 of the IT Act and the IT Rules, 2021 does not require an intermediary to guarantee the perpetual or absolute absence of potentially non-compliant third-party information from its online marketplace.
13.3. The complaint in the present matter is filed by the Crop Care Federation of India and therefore, cannot be considered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
13.4. Inter-alia, the Opposite Party has undertaken an examination of its platform in relation to the Impugned Product. Pursuant thereto, the listings pertaining to the Impugned Product have been taken down from the platform.
13.5. The obligation contemplated under Rule 10E of the Insecticides Amendments Rules, 2022 is referable to substances which fall within the statutory framework governing insecticides, including substances specified in the Schedule thereto. The present case, the Impugned Product did not fall within the said category.
13.6. The Opposite Party could not have been expected, merely on the basis of the description adopted by a third-party seller, independently to determine that the Impugned Product attracted the specialised regulatory framework under the Insecticides Act and thereafter apply the corresponding license-verification requirement under Rule 10E of the Insecticides Rules.
13.7. A request was made by the Opposite Party during the hearing to submit additional comments on the DG (Investigation) Report within a period of 7 days which was duly granted to the Opposite Party.
14. The Opposite Party vide letter dated 28.08.2026 submitted its following comments:
14.1. That which is Not Prohibited by Law is permitted; A Prohibition cannot be inferred. The proposition is self-defeating on the statute’s Own terms. Section 3(e) of the Insecticides Act defines an “insecticide” by reference to the Schedule, and the registration and licensing regimes under Section 9 and 13 of the Insecticides Act operate only upon a substance which answers that definition. The Authority cannot rely on the Office Memorandum dated June 02, 2026 (annexed to the Investigation Report) to establish that “Cyclosinone” lies outside the Schedule, and apply to it a regime which governs only Scheduled substances.
14.2. At its highest, the proposition is one of alleged non-compliance with the Insecticides Act — a self-contained code whose breaches are cognizable only through its own machinery of inspection, sampling and analysis (Sections 19 to 24), prosecution only with the written consent of the State Government (Section 31(1)), trial only before a designated criminal court (Sections 31(2) and 31A), and the statutory defenses conferred upon a company by Section 33. A special law occupying a field excludes the general — a general law specialist cannot determine for itself a jurisdictional fact which Parliament has entrusted to a specialized authority.
15. The CCPA, after careful consideration of the relevant provisions observes that –
15.1. In terms of Section 3(e) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, the expression “insecticide” includes:
(i) any substance specified in the Schedule to the Act;
(ii) such other substances, including fungicides and weedicides, as the Central Government may, after consultation with the Central Insecticides Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, include in the Schedule from time to time; and
(iii) any preparation containing one or more of such substances.
15.2. Section 27(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 stipulates for Prohibition of sale, etc., of insecticides for reasons of public safety.—
(1) If, on receipt of a report under section 26 or otherwise, the Central Government or the State Government is of opinion for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the use of any insecticide specified in clause (e) of section 3 or any specific batch thereof is likely to involve such risk to human beings or animals as to render it expedient or necessary to take immediate action…..
15.3. Section 18 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 stipulates Prohibition of sale, etc., of certain insecticides:
(1) No person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, sell, stock or exhibit for sale, distribute, transport, use, or cause to be used by any worker:
(a) any insecticide which is not registered under this Act;
(b) any insecticide, the sale, distribution or use of which is for the time being prohibited under section 27;
(c) any insecticide in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder.
(2) No person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute [or use for commercial pest control operations] any insecticide except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Act.
15.4. The Insecticides (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 clearly stipulates under Rule 10(E) for Sale of Insecticides through e-commerce entity that:
A licensee, during the currency of license, may undertake sale of any insecticide through e-commerce entity for supply of insecticides to the door step of the farmers and the licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under for the time being in force:
Provided that the operators of e-commerce entity before engaging the licensee for sale of insecticide through online portal, shall verify the validity of the licence issued by the concerned Licensing Officer of the State.
Provided further that the operators of e-commerce entity and licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 notified in the Gazette of India vide G.S.R No. 462(E) dated 23rd July, 2020 and further subsequent amendments (if any).
15.5. Section 2(1) of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 defines:
(1) “advertisement” means 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.
15.6. Section 2(28) of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 defines “misleading advertisement” in relation to any product or service to mean an advertisement:
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 thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or
iv) deliberately conceals important information.
15.7. Section 2 (47) of the Act defines ‘unfair trade practice’ as to the practice when for the objective of promoting the use or supply of any service, any person, adopts unfair or deceptive practice inter-alia any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record which falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model [(Section 2(47) (b)] or represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have [(Section 2(47) (d)].
15.8. Inter alia, the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement and Endorsement of Misleading Advertisement, 2022 stipulates under para 12 (d) that an advertisement shall not contain statements or visual presentations which directly, or by implication, or by omission, or by ambiguity, or by exaggeration are likely to mislead consumers about the product advertised, or the advertiser, or about any other product or advertiser.
16. From a bare reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that any advertisement should:
16.1. contain truthful & honest representation of facts and shall not falsely describe products,
16.2. An advertisement shall be considered to be valid and not misleading, if it does not mislead consumers by exaggerating the accuracy, scientific validity or practical usefulness or capability or performance or service of the goods.
16.3. The definition of advertisement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is wide and technology-neutral and expressly extends to publicity or representation made through “electronic media, internet or website,” without confining the term to conventional print or broadcast media.
16.4. Rule 10E of the Insecticides (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 published vide notification number G.S.R. 670 (E), came into effect from the 24.11.2022 specifically to regulate the online sale of insecticides and requires the e-commerce entity to verify the validity of the licence of the concerned licensee. Where a product is expressly represented and marketed as a herbicide, the platform cannot adopt a wholly passive approach and disclaim responsibility on the ground that the product was not identified by it as falling within the Schedule.
17. Based on the written and oral submissions made by the Opposite Party, CCPA noted that:
17.1. The Opposite Party’s attempt to distance itself from the Impugned Product by describing itself as a mere marketplace intermediary is untenable. Since it owns, manages, and operates the Online Marketplace through which it facilitated listing, hosting, advertising and selling of that unregistered impugned product. The Opposite Party cannot disclaim responsibility for unlawful or misleading products made available to consumers on its platform. The fact that the actual seller is a third party does not, by itself, absolve the platform of its statutory consumer-protection mandate. A platform cannot profit from the transaction while simultaneously disclaiming every corresponding responsibility.
17.2. The present proceedings concern the Opposite Party’s independent obligations in its capacity as an Online Marketplace, and not obligations attaching to it as a manufacturer. Once the platform facilitates the advertising, listing, hosting, offering for sale, and selling the unregistered impugned product represented as a herbicide, the statutory duties applicable to the platform cannot be avoided.
17.3. The Opposite Party’s reliance on the intermediary liability exemption under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 and on the comparative absence of a provision similar to Rule 10E of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, is misplaced as the judgment in said case was rendered in the context of remove or disable access to unlawful content with regard to far-reaching questions relatable primarily to the fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
i. The safe harbour under Section 79 is conditional upon compliance with the due diligence obligations prescribed under Section 79(2), including the general due-diligence obligation under Section 79(2)(c) and Rule 3(1)(b) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which independently obligates every intermediary to exercise due diligence to ensure that unlawful information, including the listing of goods whose sale is restricted or prohibited under applicable law, is not advertised, listed, offered for sale on its platform.
ii. The proposition regarding ‘actual knowledge’ standard in Shreya Singhal governs an intermediary’s obligation to take down specific content upon notification; it can neither be read as prohibiting all forms of due diligence, compliance measures, or reasonable regulatory obligations upon digital platforms. Nor the judgment created a blanket exemption from obligations imposed by valid legislation enacted to protect consumers and prevent unfair or deceptive commercial practices.
iii. Inter-alia, it cannot be read as a legislative intention to exempt e-commerce platforms dealing in unregistered substances from the general due-diligence obligations that independently arise under Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules, 2021 and Rules 4(3) and 5 of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, and other validly notified and gazetted law, such as Insecticides (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 published vide notification number G.S.R. 670 (E), is presumed to be known to all persons governed by it and the opposite party’s own admission, at the hearing, that it undertakes no verification whatsoever of a seller’s license leaving this entirely to the seller and buyer demonstrates that no meaningful due diligence was, in fact, applied to listings of these substances at any stage prior to the Notice.
17.4. The issue is not whether the Opposite Party was required to determine the chemical classification of the product, but whether a product expressly marketed, listed, advertised and sold as a “herbicide” in the absence of its active ingredients, chemical identity could be placed before consumers without the requisite regulatory scrutiny. The Opposite Party could have carried due diligence before allowing the advertising, listing, and selling the unregistered impugned product claiming it to be a herbicide. The relevant question is not who authored the description, but whether the platform which had adequate mechanisms to identify products represented as herbicide, ensured safeguards for the consumers as required under the Insecticides (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022.
17.5. The Opposite Party has nowhere disputed that the unregistered impugned product was not a herbicide and, therefore, did not require to be regulated. Thus, where the impugned product was being advertised, listed, hosted and sold as a “Herbicide”, it was incumbent upon the Opposite Party to have put due diligence and to ensure compliance with the mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 10(E) of the Insecticides (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022.
17.6. It was mentioned during the course of hearing that the present proceedings have been initiated pursuant to the information received from the Ministry of Agriculture, which had specifically requested appropriate action against the concerned e-commerce platforms. It is further material to note that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 expressly under Section 19(1) vests the CCPA with the statutory mandate and jurisdiction to initiate proceedings upon receipt of information from diverse sources, including information received from the Central Government, where such information discloses conduct or practices that are prejudicial to, or have the potential to adversely affect, the rights and interests of consumers. The present proceeding is firmly grounded in its statutory mandate.
17.7. The CCPA during the hearing dated 17.08.2026, displayed and read the relevant provisions of law as mentioned in para 5 and 15 above so as to remove any interpretative ambiguity. Based on which the statutory intent was clarified that, where the prescribed statutory conditions are satisfied with respect to the likelihood of risk arising from the use of any insecticide or any specific batch thereof, the law contemplates the taking of immediate action where such action is considered expedient or necessary.
17.8. The import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides is regulated with the view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and insecticides includes fungicides & weedicides i.e. herbicides. The impugned product was labelled as cyclosinone herbicide low toxicity and claimed as “Farmers and Gardeners Approved Weed Killer” etc., is not in the scheduled list under the Insecticides Act, 1968. Still the product cyclosinone claimed as herbicide was being sold on Opposite Party’s platform without disclosing chemical name of its active ingredients and composition. Thus, the claim of the Opposite Party that since cyclosinone is not prohibited, it can be construed as permitted is not tenable, as only those insecticides including herbicide can be sold which are in the schedule of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
17.9. The underlying object of consumer protection legislation is to empower consumers by ensuring access to complete, accurate, and truthful information, thereby enabling them to make informed choices. In furtherance of this objective, with the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor has undergone a marked transformation, giving rise to the principle of caveat venditor.
18. It is imperative to mention that statutory provisions mandate due diligence to be carried out for offering sale of goods and services and violating the same, amounts to misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice. In the present matter after consideration of the submissions made by the Opposite Party and findings recorded in the DG Investigation Report, the CCPA finds that:
18.1. The 4501 impugned products were advertised, listed and offered for sale on the Online Marketplace as a “Herbicide”, “claimed 5% formulation granules and low toxicity” product, without disclosure of its active ingredient, precise chemical identity, requisite regulatory credentials, license particulars, or other material information necessary for consumers to assess its legality, scientific validity, safety and efficacy. The right of consumers to be informed of the quality, quantity, potency, standard, purity and characteristics of goods cannot be rendered illusory by withholding and deliberately concealing information which is essential for an informed choice before purchasing a product.
18.2. The claims made in the impugned listings including “Farmer and Gardener Approved Weed Killer”, “Eco-Safe Weeds Terminator Lawn”, “Long Lasting Protection”, “Safe Weed Control for Lawns”, were material claims capable of influencing a consumer’s purchasing decision. In the absence of adequate substantiation and disclosure of the composition and regulatory status of the unregistered impugned product, such representations were capable to mislead consumers as to the nature, characteristics, safety, quality and efficacy of the product and, therefore, constitute a misleading advertisement within Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
18.3. The submission of Opposite party further established that 4501 listings of the impugned product were made and through which 5,47,223 units were sold through the Online Marketplace, having an aggregate sale value of ₹11,57,89,968/-, and that the Opposite Party did not undertake adequate independent verification of the regulatory credentials of the impugned product or of the sellers. The subsequent identification and prohibition of the listings further demonstrates the scale requiring the necessity of CCPA from exercising its statutory jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
18.4. The Opposite Party’s platform cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be characterized as being operated “for any public good” or in the nature of a public utility. On the contrary, the platform is operated as a commercial enterprise for the direct and substantial pecuniary benefit of the Opposite Party, which derives revenue from the engagement, participation, listings, and related activities facilitated through the platform. This commercial character is further unequivocally borne out by the submission of the Opposite Party’s concerning its commission structure. (Annexure: B)
18.5. The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare has categorically stated that no chemical under the nomenclature “Cyclosinone” is included in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 1968. The insecticides / pesticides are inherently toxic in nature as they are designed to combat the insects, diseases and weeds, hence its manufacturing, sale, transport, distribution and use are regulated under the law with a view to prevent risk to human beings and animals. Further, prior to giving registration to any insecticides for use in the country, various authorities are verified in detail relating to its chemistry, toxicity, bio-efficacy, and packaging claims. The unregistered impugned product was being marketed via e-commerce platforms including that of the Opposite Party which explicitly claimed being a “Herbicide” and was being sold illegally because it bypasses the mandatory safety, bio efficacy, quality, legal checks required under the said Act.
18.6. The Registration Committee (R.C.) constituted under Section 5 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, clearly states that R.C. registers insecticides after scrutinizing formula, verify claims of efficacy and safety to human beings and animals, specifying the precautions against poisoning and performing any functions incidental to these matters. Therefore, the Opposite Party could have facilitated the listing, advertisement, and sale of hazardous substances with misleading claims that are subject to mandatory registration, licensing, verification, and other regulatory requirements. Indeed, Section 2(9) recognizes, inter alia, the consumer’s right to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property. Hence, by enabling access to such sensitive and potentially hazardous materials without ensuring adequate regulatory disclosures, verification, and consumer safeguards, the Opposite Party materially violated the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and facilitated access to regulated substances in circumstances giving rise to grave and foreseeable risks to the safety of consumers as a class.
18.7. The CCPA has clarified that enforcement, licensing, and penal consequences under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder fall within the jurisdiction of the competent statutory authorities, and that the present proceedings do not adjudicate or determine criminal liability under the said enactment. However, the said statutory framework read conjointly and in their proper context with the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the rules framed thereunder is directly germane to the present proceedings, as it establishes the Opposite Party has falsely described unregistered impugned product such as “Farmer and Gardener Approved Weed Killer”, “Eco-Safe Weeds Terminator Lawn”, “Long Lasting Protection”, “Safe Weed Control for Lawns”, and while, at the same time, deliberately concealed important information including its active ingredients, chemical identity and registration and license particulars, which squarely falls within the ambit of Section 2(1), Section 2(9), Section 2(28), Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, read with Rules 4(3) and 5 of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
18.8. Insecticides, including herbicides, may lawfully be offered for sale only by a person or entity holding a valid license as required under the applicable law. Accordingly, e-commerce entities, prior to listing, advertising, facilitating and selling any hazardous chemical products purportedly claimed as “herbicides,” including products described as “Safe Weed Control for Lawns” etc. ought to have undertaken due diligence to verify the validity, authenticity of the requisite license of the seller including the active ingredient, precise chemical identity, requisite regulatory credentials of the impugned products. Such due diligence is necessary to safeguard consumers from the potentially hazardous products.
18.9. The Courts have, in analogous contexts, taken a strict view of the online availability of substances whose sale is subject to licensing or regulatory control, where adequate verification safeguards are absent. The Delhi High Court, in Dr. Zaheer Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) 11711/2018, by an interim order dated 12th December, 2018 (Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V. Kameswar Rao), restrained the sale of drugs online without a valid license, taking note of the risk posed by unregulated and unverified access to substances requiring licensed sale. While those proceedings concerned pharmaceutical products, the underlying rationale is that the mere convenience of online access cannot be permitted to dilute the licensing and verification safeguards that apply to the sale of a regulated substance in the physical marketplace applies with equal, if not greater, force to insecticides substances such as unregistered impugned product, having regard to the gravity and risk to soil, human beings and animals.
18.10. The fact that the Opposite Party operates as a marketplace e-commerce model does not confer upon it any blanket immunity from the obligations expressly cast upon a “marketplace e-commerce entity” under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 (“E-Commerce Rules”). The very definition of a “marketplace e-commerce entity” under Rule 3(g) contemplates an entity which provides an information technology platform to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers. The Rules thereafter specifically prescribe independent duties and liabilities of such marketplace entities. The statutory scheme therefore makes a clear distinction between the role of the seller as the person offering the goods for sale and the independent obligations imposed upon the marketplace through which such transaction is facilitated.
18.11. The Opposite Party cannot simultaneously invoke its status as a marketplace e-commerce entity for the purposes of conducting its business and disown the corresponding statutory obligations imposed upon such entities for the protection of consumers. The proceedings before the CCPA, concern the Opposite Party’s conduct and obligations as an e-commerce entity facilitating the advertisement and sale of the impugned product to consumers, and not any liability arising from its manufacture of the product. The defence of “mere intermediary” cannot be permitted to operate as a jurisdictional shield against an express statutory regime enacted specifically to regulate e-commerce entities and prevent unfair trade practices on digital marketplaces. Therefore, the Opposite Party failed to exercise adequate due diligence and safeguards commensurate with the nature of the unregistered impugned product representations to consumers as an herbicide.
18.12. The Delhi High Court, in Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215, examining the liability of an e-commerce platform claiming intermediary status, held that an online marketplace ceases to be a passive intermediary and becomes an active participant where it renders services beyond mere hosting including charging of fees, actively promoting sellers’ listings and offering verification or authentication services that lend credibility to a seller in the eyes of a buyer and that such active participation disentitles the platform to safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This principle applies with full force to the facts of the present case and was accordingly examined in the present matter.
18.13. The submission that the Opposite Party merely displays information entered by sellers and therefore bears no responsibility for such information ignores the express language of the E-Commerce Rules. Rule 5(2) which clearly states that the marketplace to obtain an undertaking from the sellers regarding the accuracy of descriptions, images and other content relating to goods or services displayed on its platform. The statutory architecture is therefore not premised upon the proposition that a marketplace may simply reproduce whatever information is uploaded by a seller and thereafter disclaim all responsibility towards consumers.
18.14. Reliance upon the Flipkart Terms of Use is misplaced. A contractual arrangement between the Opposite Party and its sellers cannot dilute, transfer, or contract out of statutory obligations imposed for the protection of consumers. The existence of contractual assurances from sellers merely demonstrates that the Opposite Party was aware of the need for legal compliance, it does not establish that the Opposite Party actually exercised effective diligence to prevent non-compliant unregistered impugned products from being sold to consumers through its platform.
18.15. A contractual arrangement between a marketplace and its sellers cannot override, dilute or contract out of statutory obligations imposed by Parliament or delegated legislation for protection of consumers. The statutory requirement of obtaining a seller undertaking itself demonstrates that the marketplace has a compliance obligation; it is not sufficient for the marketplace to merely assert that responsibility rests contractually upon the seller. Moreover, Rule 4(3) of the E-Commerce Rules expressly provides that no e-commerce entity shall adopt any unfair trade practice, whether in the course of business or otherwise.
18.16. The Opposite Party’s reliance upon its alleged automated blocking mechanisms and subsequent removal of the impugned listings does not exonerate it. Rather, such conduct demonstrates that the Opposite Party possesses the technological capability to identify, restrict and remove listings based upon specified product names, keywords and regulatory concerns. The emphasis that the listings had previously been automatically blocked under certain regulated categories, coupled with the subsequent decision to specifically flag “Cyclosinone” across categories, materially undermines the proposition that the platform is a wholly passive and technologically neutral conduit. More importantly, Post-facto corrective measures may mitigate continuing consumer harm, but cannot be invoked as a defense against statutory accountability. Inter-alia, the opposite party’s own submissions establish that it possesses full technical and administrative control over the content hosted on its platform including the ability to review, restrict and remove listings, disable seller accounts and implement keyword-level blocking and it cannot, in the same breath, contend that responsibility for regulatory compliance rests exclusively with third-party sellers.
18.17. The heightened responsibility attaching to any person or entity facilitating access to inherently hazardous substances finds support in the well-settled principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 (the Oleum Gas Leak case), where the Court held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results on account of such activity and that this obligation cannot be diluted merely because the enterprise claims to have exercised reasonable care. While that case arose in the context of tortious liability for industrial hazards, the underlying principle that those who deal in, or facilitate access to, inherently dangerous substances bear a heightened, non-delegable duty of care commensurate with the risk involved is instructive in assessing the standard of due diligence expected of the opposite party in permitting the listing of unregistered impugned product.
18.18. Accordingly, the CCPA holds that the conduct complained of resulted in violation of consumer rights and constituted a misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Additionally, for the sake of clarity it is emphasized the Rule 10E of the Insecticides (Amendment) Rules, 2022, is itself vocal that the operators of e-commerce entity and licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020. It may be emphasized that the regulatory purpose of the Act would be defeated if intervention were permissible only after actual injury had materialised.
19. For the foregoing reasons, CCPA is of the considered view that the legislative object of the CCPA is expressly class-based. Section 18 empowers the Authority to protect, promote and enforce consumer rights “as a class” and to prevent unfair trade practices. The statutory framework therefore does not require the CCPA to await individual instances of physical injury or financial loss before exercising jurisdiction.
19.1. In the instant matter, the plea that the Opposite Party does not initiate, select, or modify the information cannot be treated as a defense to regulatory liability. The CCPA’s concern is not confined to authorship of the listing, but extends to the Opposite Party’s obligation to exercise adequate due diligence and prevent consumers from being exposed to unregistered, unsafe, and misleading products by concealment of information through its marketplace. A platform cannot profit from the transaction while simultaneously disclaiming every corresponding responsibility.
19.2. The Opposite Party was required to exercise appropriate due diligence commensurate with the regulatory sensitivity of such product. Rule 6 of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, read with the applicable regulatory framework governing online sale of insecticides, cannot be construed as permitting an e-commerce entity to discharge its statutory obligations merely by obtaining contractual declarations or self-certifications from third-party sellers.
19.3. The Opposite Party’s attempt to characterize the proceedings as an effort by the CCPA to become a “sectoral regulator” is therefore a false equivalence. The CCPA is not assuming regulatory jurisdiction over the manufacture, composition or scientific properties of the product. It is examining the conduct of an e-commerce entity insofar as violation of consumer rights, misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices are concerned, i.e, matters which fall squarely within its statutory mandate.
19.4. In particular, the sale of unregistered impugned product, listed, hosted, and advertised by explicitly claiming to being an “Herbicide bypassed the mandatory safety, bio efficacy, quality, legal checks required under the Insecticides Act, 1968. Further, where the applicable regulatory regime requires verification of the validity of the license of a licensee before facilitating online sale, it necessarily contemplates an effective verification mechanism, disclosure of ingredients, precise chemical identity and not a mere paper allocation of responsibility.
19.5. Section 2(9) of the Act protects against the marketing of goods hazardous to life and property and is not confined in its application to household consumer goods. The opposite party cannot absolve itself of responsibility merely on the ground that the impugned listings were uploaded by independent third-party sellers or on the ground that it functions as a mere marketplace ecommerce entity with no knowledge of requirements of extant laws.
19.6. It is a settled principle in consumer protection jurisprudence that representations must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable consumer of average intelligence, and not through a technical interpretation by the advertiser. The Opposite Party’s attempt to conflate inherently subjective taglines with an absolute claim is therefore unsustainable and misleading.
19.7. Accordingly, the CCPA concludes that the impugned claims constitute misleading advertisements and unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and with affects consumers as a class. CCPA is of the opinion that it is also necessary to levy a penalty for falsely representing the product.
20. 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.
d. the gross revenue from the sales effected by virtue of such offence
21. In view of the above, the CCPA hereby issues the following directions to the Opposite party:
i. To discontinue false and misleading advertisement with immediate effect from its platform.
ii. The Opposite Party shall further ensure that, it shall conduct self-audit of its platform to prevent listings of products which are in contravention of the law for the time being in force or which are hazardous to life and safety of the consumers.
iii. The opposite shall pay a maximum penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for first violation of indulging in misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice.
iv. The Opposite Party shall submit a compliance report to CCPA on the above directions within 15 days from the date of this Order.
22. The above order and directions are passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon CCPA under section 10, 18, 20, 21 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
