M/s Everse Vs Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Summary: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) imposed a penalty of ₹10 lakh on M/s Everse over online listings of Anti-Drone Systems, Drone Jammers and GPS Jammers that did not disclose the licensing restrictions, statutory approvals and penal consequences governing such equipment. Everse contended that the listings were only inactive placeholders for preliminary market research, that no inventory was procured Telecommunications Act, 2023 and no sales occurred, and that the products were removed after the Show Cause Notice. CCPA found those explanations inconsistent with the retail-style product pages displaying prices, struck-through MRPs, delivery/return/warranty features and a reservation charge, as well as WhatsApp exchanges in which Everse representatives discussed models, budgets and product links with prospective buyers. The Authority also noted a Wireless Monitoring Station notice recording Everse as engaged in sale/distribution of RF equipment and requiring necessary permissions. CCPA held that publication of the listings itself amounted to advertisement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and that absence of a completed sale or demonstrated consumer harm did not eliminate liability. It found violations of consumer rights, misleading-advertisement and unfair-trade-practice provisions and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. Everse was directed not to list or offer anti-drone/jamming equipment unless valid approvals are prominently displayed, a verifiable KYC/end-use mechanism restricts fulfilment to authenticated Government, defence or law-enforcement users, and licensing requirements and penal consequences are disclosed. A compliance report is due within 15 days.
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 M/s Everse, a partnership firm operating the e-commerce website www.everse.in (GST No. 29AAKFE6231H1ZB), having its registered office at 4th Floor, 330, 27th Main Rd, opp. to Union Bank, Parangi Palaya, Sector 2, HSR Layout, Bengaluru — 560102, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as ‘opposite party/’Everse’), with regard to the listing, hosting and advertisement of products described as “Anti-Drone Systems / Drone Jammers / GPS Jammers” on its platform, without the necessary statutory disclosures and regulatory authorizations.
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, misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices, inter alia, 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 conceming 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. ltisin view of the above regulatory and statutory position that CCPA took cognizance of the matter and held a preliminary inquiry, wherein it observed, that Everse (www.everse.in) had listed, hosted and offered for sale seven products under the “Anti- Drone”/”Drone Jammer”/”GPS Jammer” category of its website, namely: (i) Anti-Drone Gun (27,50,000), (i) XGaurd (Anti-Drone) (¥1,20,000), (iii) RF-Patrol XK2 (Anti-Drone) (Z1,00,000), (iv) X-Gun XK4 (Anti-Drone) (1,40,000), (v) X-Radar XK2 (Vehicle Mounted Anti-Drone) (%1 20,000), (vi) X-Eye (Anti-Drone) (Z1,20,000), and (vii} X-Mini (Anti-Drone) (21,20,000). (Annexure 1) Each listing displayed the product’s price alongside a struck- through, higher “MRP”, together with standard commercial e-commerce representations, namely “Same day dispatch, order before 2:30 PM”, “30 days easy returns”, “24/7 support service”, “Cash on Delivery option available”, “1-Year Software Warranty”, and “Reserve Your Drone for ¥5,000”, with only a passive “Notify Me” button in place of an active “Buy Now’/”Add to Cart” option. None of these listings 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.
7. From the perusal of the preliminary inquiry report and 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 theConsumer 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 consumers as a class.
8. Accordingly, CCPA issued a Show Cause Notice dated 16.02.2026 (F. No. CCPA- 2/12/2026-CCPA) to Everse, 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. Everse 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, ii. 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, including name, address, GST number, contact details and purpose, v. details of any third-party sellers/vendors listing similar equipment, vi. steps taken to discontinue the sale and prevent recurrence, and vii. a complete list of similar RF/wireless transmitting equipment offered for sale on its website.
9. Inresponse, Everse submitted a reply dated 24.02.2026, wherein it submitted that: i. the products were temporarily listed solely for preliminary market research purposes to assess market size, target customer segments, product specifications, price expectations, and potential use cases prompted by a trend in anti-drone search queries observed around May 2025,
i. only the product name and an indicative image were displayed, no technical specifications or performance claims were published,
iii. the listings were not promoted through any digital campaign, social media, or third- party platform, and were accessible only via direct keyword search on the website,
iv. no general consumer enquiries were received, a few enquiries were received from defence-related entities, in respect of which Everse communicated that the product was unavailable,
v. zero units were sold, zero purchase orders were issued, zero inventory was procured, and zero supply occurred, and
vi. upon receipt of the Show Cause Notice, the products were immediately delisted from the website.
10. On examination of the reply, CCPA found it prima facie unsatisfactory because it did not explain why the impugned listings displayed the full range of ordinary retail features, such as a specific price (up to ¥7,50,000) alongside a struck-through “MRP”, same-day dispatch, a 30-day return policy, Cash-on-Delivery, a one-year warranty and an explicit ¥5,000 “reservation” charge, none of which serves any purpose in a purely internal, non- commercial market-research exercise, and because it offered no explanation of the source or origin of the listed products or their content. CCPA accordingly held that the reply failed to discharge the burden on Everse and, under Section 19 of the Act, was satisfied that a prima facie case of violation of consumer rights, misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice existed, warranting detailed investigation.
11. Accordingly, vide letter dated 02.03.2026, CCPA referred the matter to the Director General (Investigation), CCPA, under Section 22 of the Act, for detailed investigation into, inter alia: whether Everse listed/hosted/advertised restricted wireless transmitting devices and the duration, nature and visibility of such listings, whether the “Notify Me”/enquiry- based model constitutes an ‘offer for sale’, ‘advertisement’ or ‘promotion’ under the Act, whether any enquiries, communications or negotiations took place with prospective buyers, including any verification mechanism 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 Everse’s conduct amounts to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act.
12. The Director General (Investigation) submitted its findings in the Investigation Report dated 19.05.2026, recording the following findings:
i. Even though the Company accepted the listing of unlicensed Anti-Drone Systems, Drone Jammer and GPS Jammer devices for “temporary preliminary market research”, but did not furnish a complete response supported by documentary evidence.
ii. The Company did not cooperate with the investigation and failed to submit the requisite information sought, while the listings were not found available for purchase on keyword search at that stage of investigation, no licences under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 or authorisation under the MHA O.M. dated 10.03.2023 had been placed on record, raising concerns of continuing non- compliance and consumer safety.
iii. No Al-based filter or other automated mechanism had been implemented by the Company to identify and block prohibited product listings on the platform.
iv. Sale of GPS Jammer devices is prohibited under Section 42(3)(a) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, unlawful possession or use may disrupt civil aviation communications, public safety networks and critical communication infrastructure, a consumer purchasing such a device cannot lawfully possess or use the same without prior Government authorisation.
v. The Company, being an intermediary, was also found to be in violation of Rule 3(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which casts an obligation on intermediaries to remove illegal content upon being notified by an authorised government agency.
13. Based on the above, the Investigation Report concluded that Everse had violated multiple provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer Protection (E- Commerce) Rules, 2020, and the Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 that the e-commerce platform framework “unequivocally demonstrate” that the listed products were offered for sale through an “Add to Cart” option, which could not be- undermined by Everse’s contention that there was no intention to sell, that the platform enabled the listing and search visibility of unauthorised products while claiming a bonafide exploratory exercise with “Zero Units Sold”, amounting to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act, and that the delisting of the products post-notice, without holding a valid licence or making the relevant disclosures, indicated violation of Rules 4(3) and 4(6) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
14. The Investigation Report was shared with Everse, calling upon it to file its comments. Everse filed a Written Rejoinder and Comments dated 15.06.2026 through its authorised partner, raising the following:
i. Preliminary submissions reiterating “absolute and unwavering alignment with national security directives”, categorically denying violation of Section 2(47)/Section 2(28), and characterising the listings as “a passive, restricted, and non-promoted exploratory exercise for internal market mapping” resulting in “Zero Units Sold, Zero Units Procured, and Zero Revenue Generated”.
ii. On the finding of non-cooperation/continued listing, Everse contended it had submitted its GST Registration Certificate and GSTR-3B returns, and had proactively compiled and handed over a log of enquirers to the Officer-in-Charge, Wireless Monitoring Station (‘WMS’), Bangalore, Department of Telecommunications. It contended that the DG’s finding that it “continues to allow listings” was self-contradictory, since the DG’s own Report records “absolute zero search visibility” for the listings, the underlying metadata/index parameters having been removed immediately upon receipt of the Show Cause Notice.
iii. On the finding regarding “Add to Cart”/offer for sale, Everse contended that the Department’s own records show that none of the listings carried an “Add to Cart” or “Buy Now” option, the only interface element being a passive “Notify Me” tab, which “mathematically and structurally confirms” that the products were out of stock. It characterised the “Reserve Your Drone for ¥5,000” line and the standard shipping/warranty disclaimers as automated, unedited Content-Management- System boilerplate rather than a genuine commercial offer, and asserted that the listing directory was disconnected from any payment gateway or vendor dispatch network, making a transaction “structurally impossible”.
iv. On the national-security/intermediary findings, Everse contended that, in the absence of any physical inventory, import, or civilian transfer, there was no risk to public safety infrastructure, and that deletion of metadata/URLs immediately upon notice satisfied its due diligence obligation under Rule 3(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2021. It also acknowledged the “stringent statutory regulations surrounding signal-disruption technology” and relied on Section 42(3)(a) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.
v. On the specific information demanded by the Department, Everse submitted that it had never imported, procured, possessed or sold any anti-drone system or drone jammer, and that no WPC, DoT, DGFT or MHA approvals were therefore required. It stated that the listings were uploaded “solely for introductory market research and demand assessment purposes” under a “Notify Me” status, that zero units were sold in the last two years, and that only “preliminary customer enquiries” were received. It added that the listing text was taken from public websites such as XBoom and MavDrones, with which it has no commercial relationship, that no vendor was onboarded, that the listings were visible from about the second quarter of 2025 and discoverable only through specific keyword searches, and that its other RF products carry “valid regulatory certifications”.
vi. On revenue reconciliation, Everse contended that its GSTR-3B returns show no supplies of any anti-drone system or jammer and zero Input Tax Credit on imported or reverse-charge RF equipment, and that this proves no procurement or logistics framework ever existed. It did not dispute that the pages displayed prices of ₹7,50,000 for the “Anti-Drone Gun” and %1,20,000 for the “XGaurd” system, but described them as “inactive digital placeholders”.
vii. On preventive measures, Everse stated that it has introduced “hardcoded string filters™ blocking terms such as “Drone Gun”, “Jammer”, “GPS Blocker” and “WPC Restricted””, and that listings in communication categories are now barred unless Equipment Type Approval or clearance numbers are attached.
viii. By way of documents, Everse additionally furnished (a) Certificate of Incorporation, GST Registration Certificate, and GST Returns for three financial years, (b) an Import Licence stated to demonstrate “zero imports” of the products in question, (c) a document described as a “Compliance Report and Advisory” issued by Smt. Priti Kumari, I.R.R.S., Officer-in-Charge, Wireless Monitoring Station, Bangalore, DoT, (d) “verification screenshots” of what it described as “limited casual backend customer inquiries”, (e) the log of enquirers handed to the WMS, (f) screenshots showing zero active search results, (g) archive screenshots showing the “Notify Me” status, and (h) certified financial certificates and backend gateway statements.
ix. Everse prayed that the statutory tax reconciliations and portal-deletion logs be accepted, that the proposed proceedings be dropped and the file closed, and that any other order the Authority deems fit be passed.
15. Section 2(1) of the Act defines “advertisement” to mean any audio or visual publicity, representation, endorsement or pronouncement made by, inter alia, print, electronic media, internet or website. The publication of a fully worked-out, individually priced product page bearing a stated price, a struck-through “MRP”, a discount percentage, defined delivery timelines, a return policy, a Cash-on-Delivery option, a stated warranty period, and an explicit ¥5,000 reservation charge is, on a plain reading of Section 2(1), itself a representation and advertisement, irrespective of whether the transactional “buy” button on that particular page was live.
16. The Authority has examined the WhatsApp chat screenshots furnished by Everse with its Rejoinder dated 15.06.2026. These records contradict Everse’s averments that the products were always communicated as unavailable and that there were no quotations, negotiations or communications with intended buyers. In the chats, Everse’s representatives repeatedly asked buyers what model they wanted and never stated that the products were unavailable. They also shared product links and pricing pages as depicted as follows:
i. To a buyer seeking an “Anti drone gun”, Everse asked “Which model you’re looking for”. (Annexure 2)
ii. It also asked one buyer “Whats your budget?” and then said “My technician team will connect with you soon”. (Annexure 3)
iii. Another buyer was told “Mam, select the model you’ll like to go ahead”, after Everse had shared listings for the X-Eye, X-Mini, RF-Patrol XK2 and X-Gun XKA4. (Annexure 4)
iv. A buyer who asked “Is it actually 1.2 lac? | will buy in 2-3 days if it is” received the reply “Will confirm”. (Annexure 5)
All these are not statements of unavailability. These shows an active sales exchange. It is clarified that the mobile numbers/contact details reflected in the Annexures annexed hereto stand redacted solely out of due regard to the privacy of the concerned individuals.
17. The chats also show that enquirers were not confined to authorised government or defence entities. One enquirer from Sangli, Maharashtra, with no stated institutional affiliation, wrote “| want anti drone gun / For security reasons”. Everse asked only for his location, shared the search link, and did not decline. Everse also requested technical specification documents from one buyer. Taken together, these records show that Everse solicited buyer requirements and budgets, shared product links, and engaged private buyers, all the while stating that its website listings were a non-commercial exercise.
18. The Authority has also examined the communication dated 20.05.2026 from the Officer-in-Charge, Wireless Monitoring Station, Bangalore (DoT), which Everse relies on in its reply dated 15.06.2026 as a “Compliance Report and Advisory” showing cooperation. The document is in fact a “Notice”, not a compliance certificate. It records that, “upon inspection”, Everse was found engaged in the sale/distribution of RF equipment, states that signal jammers and anti-drone systems “are generally prohibited for manufacture, sale and use except where specifically authorized by the Government of India”, and directs Everse to ‘”immediately obtain ‘the necessary permissions/authorizations/certifications/licenses”. Issued after the Show Cause Notice dated 16.02.2026, it is a parallel regulatory finding by an independent wireless-sector authority in the same subject area as the present proceedings, and it contradicts Everse’s claim that its RF products are supported by valid regulatory certifications. {Annexure 6)
19. A hearing was held before this Authority on 17.06.2026, at which Sh. Niraj Kumar Singh, Partner, M/s Everse, appeared and made oral submissions on behalf of the Noticee, which largely reiterated the contentions in its Written Rejoinder dated 15.06.2026. During the hearing, he submitted, inter alia, that he had previously been employed with M/s Xboom Utilities Pvt. Ltd. (“Xboom”), and that upon leaving that employment and establishing his own company, Everse, he had copied all data relating to the product listings, images and descriptions of every product directly from the Xboom website. On being specifically queried by the Authority as to whether his intention was also to use Xboom’s vendors for fulfilment of these very products, he answered in the affirmative. He further submitted that the listings were put up solely to check the quantum . of demand, and that only if such demand was found to be considerable would the company have contemplated actually selling the products on its website. Everse was directed to place on record, within seven days, every relevant document in its possession.
20. In response to the said direction, Everse, by email dated 26.06.2026, furnished its balance sheets, GST Registration Certificate, Import Certificate, Partnership Deed, GST returns/filings, and proof of employment with Xboom. Also, in the response, Sh. Niraj Kumar Singh stated that certain product listings were “inadvertently” taken from the Xboom website after he left its employment, that there was no mala fide intention, and ; that the listings were meant only for market research and understanding product demand. He stated that no inventory was procured, no vendors were engaged, and no purchases or sales were made through the listings. He expressed regret for the “oversight” and prayed for leniency.
21. By communication dated 11.08.2026, the Authority sought from Everse the details of all sellers/vendors, including their contact, GST and PAN details, and the number of units sold and the purchasers to whom products were supplied in the preceding two years, noting that this information sought in the Show Cause Notice remained awaited. Everse replied on 19.08.2026, stating that no anti-drone system, drone jammer or GPS jammer was ever procured, imported, stocked, sold or supplied by it, that the units sold were “NIL” with no purchasers, invoices or delivery records, and that the webpages were created only for preliminary market research. It added that the physical inspection of its premises did not result in recovery of any such equipment.
22. The Authority noted that the consistent position taken by Everse at every prior stage of these proceedings was that the listings were the product of an independent, bonafide, internally-conceived exercise in “preliminary market research”, undertaken to “assess market size, target customer segments, product specifications, price expectations, and potential use cases”. Everse cannot be heard to contend that it exercised any diligence commercial, technical, or regulatory in respect of equipment that this Authority’s Advisory dated 29.04.2022 had, more than three years in advance, specifically identified as unlawful for general sale, when the listings in question were, on its own admission, reproduced wholesale from a third party’s website without any independent assessment of that equipment’s licensing or regulatory status.
23. 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.
The absence of a completed sale or demonstrated consumer harm does not affect the fact that publication of the listings itself constitutes the advertisement under Section 2(1), regardless of whether a transaction followed or not. Everse has not denied that it did not host, list, and advertise for sale highly regulated products, including Anti-Drone Systems, Drone Jammers, and GPS Jammers, while deliberately concealing and withholding material information regarding the licences, authorisations, and regulatory clearances applicable to such products for the consumers. Having done so, Everse cannot take refuge in the contention that the listings were merely enquiry-based, targeted at a specialised clientele, or did not result in a completed transaction. Everse’s role in the 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. It therefore, is a misleading advertisement under Sec 2(28) of the Act.
24. 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,. Everse’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.
25. 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. Everse has neither disclosed the source/importer of the seven listed products (which, on its own admission, were never procured, imported, or sourced by it at all, having been reproduced from a third party’s listings) nor any import/regulatory particulars in respect of such equipment, and is accordingly in violation of Rules 4(3) and 4(6) of the said Rules.
26. Having regard to the foregoing, the Authority records the following findings:
i. M/s Everse 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 seven Anti-Drone/Drone Jammer/GPS Jammer products (Anti-Drone Gun, XGaurd, RF-Patrol XK2, X-Gun XK4, X-Radar XK2, X-Eye and X-Mini) without disclosure of the applicable licensing/regulatory restrictions.
ii. Everse’s conduct is contrary to the CCPA Advisory dated 29.04.2022.
iii. The material furnished by Everse itself discloses consumer-facing engagement, including with an individual having no stated defence/government affiliation, inconsistent with Everse’s repeated submission that all enquiries were met with a communication of unavailability and that no negotiations/communications were maintained.
27. 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.
28. 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. Sq Chief Commissioner Anupam Mishra Commissioner
