In re Suo moto proceedings initiated (CCPA)
Summary: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), in suo motu proceedings against Javiat Aerospace Private Limited, imposed a penalty of ₹10 lakh for listing and advertising restricted anti-drone systems, drone jammers and GPS jammers without disclosing the applicable licensing requirements and regulatory restrictions. Its preliminary inquiry identified five “D-FENDER” products—Z01, Z06, Z08, Z09 and Z10—on the company’s publicly accessible website. The listings contained technical specifications, “Download Datasheet” and “Enquire Now” options, and claims such as “trusted by Defence” and “mission-ready under extreme conditions”, but did not disclose the authorisations needed for lawful possession or use or the consequences of unauthorised use. Following a show cause notice dated 19 February 2026, the company maintained that the products were only at the design and research and development stage, that no manufacture, import, testing, sale, supply or commercial deployment had occurred, and that its intended customers were authorised Government and defence agencies. It stated that the images were conceptual, drawn from open-source material and AI-generated visuals, and removed the listings after receiving the notice. It also produced an application for a Dealer Possession Licence. CCPA found that the application was incomplete, had not resulted in any licence, and itself contained a declaration that dealing would not commence before the possession licence was issued.
The investigation report dated 9 June 2026 recorded repeated non-response to investigative notices and inconsistencies between the company’s conceptual-product defence, operational marketing claims and licence application covering five units. Subsequent opportunities did not produce the required financial statements, supply details, vendor and purchaser information or a complete response to the report; incorporation and identification documents were considered insufficient.
The Authority rejected the contention that enquiry-based listings, specialised intended customers, removal of the advertisements or absence of completed sales avoided liability. It held that publication itself constituted advertising under Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and that concealing material licensing information while promoting operational capabilities amounted to misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice. It recorded violations of Sections 2(9), 2(28) and 2(47), Rule 4(3) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, and conduct contrary to its advisory dated 29 April 2022. Exercising powers under Sections 10, 20 and 21, CCPA imposed the maximum penalty prescribed for a first contravention. It prohibited further listings, advertisements, promotions or offers for sale of such equipment unless valid approvals are obtained and prominently displayed, a verifiable KYC and end-use authorisation mechanism restricts access and fulfilment to authenticated Government, defence or law-enforcement users, and licensing requirements and penal consequences are prominently disclosed. A compliance report was required within 15 days of the order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY
1. This is a suo moto case taken up by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCPA’/the Authority’) against Javiat Aerospace Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘opposite party’/’Javiat Aerospace’/’the Company’), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 (CIN: U26515KA2023PTC173741), having its office at 3rd Floor, No. 224, Ranka Junction, Old Madras Road, Workflo by Oyo, Bengaluru, Karnataka — 560016, and operating the website www.javiataerospace.in, 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 authorisations.
2. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 read with Section 18(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the CCPA is empowered to inquire into violations of consumer rights and unfair trade practices, either suo motu, on receipt of complaints, or on directions issued by the Central Government.
3. CCPA had earlier issued an Advisory dated 29.04.2022 concerning the illegal facilitation and sale of wireless jammers on e-commerce platforms. The said Advisory specifically noted that wireless jammers, being capable of disrupting authorised telecom and wireless networks, are illegal for general sale and use, and that any facilitation or sale of such devices by e-commerce platforms would be viewed as an illegal activity and construed as a violation of consumer rights and adoption of unfair trade practices under the Act.
4, The product in question, namely the “D-FENDER” range of Anti-Drone Systems/Jammers, is a wireless transmitting/jamming device 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, (i) the wireless licensing regime administered by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT)/Wireless Planning & Coordination (WPC) Wing, (iv) the Foreign Trade {(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, requiring a DGFT licence with prior WPC/DoT and Cabinet Secretariat clearance, (v) the Cabinet Secretariat Guidelines for Procurement, Possession and Use of Jammers, 2025, and (vi) the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, under which a Manufacturing & Testing Licence and an Experimental (Radiating) Licence are required for manufacture and possession of RF jamming equipment, and a Wireless Operating Licence is mandatory for its use, all of which collectively restrict such equipment strictly to authorised Government and security agencies.
5. Further, as per Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines (MHA O.M. dated 10.03.2023), prior permission of the MHA is mandatory for the manufacture, procurement, deployment and use of jammers, including those forming part of Counter Rogue Drone (CRD) systems, and only authorised agencies are permitted to procure or use such equipment. Section 42(3)(a) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 further makes possession or use of any equipment that blocks telecommunications, without authorisation, punishable with imprisonment up to three years or fine up to fifty lakh rupees, or both. Such devices, by their very design and function, are capable of disrupting civil aviation communications, public safety networks, and other critical communication infrastructure, and accordingly carry serious national security implications.
6. It is in view of the above regulatory and statutory position that CCPA took cognizance of, and conducted a preliminary inquiry wherein it was observed that Javiat Aerospace (www.javiataerospace.in) had listed, hosted and advertised for sale five products under the “Anti-Drone Systems” category of its website, each branded “D- FENDER” and accompanied by detailed technical specifications and marketing descriptions of their jamming/disruption capabilities, and each offering “Download Datasheet” and “Enquire Now” as the mode of consumer interaction: (i) D-FENDER Z01 (Anti-Drone), (i) D-FENDER Z06 (Anti-Drone), (iii) D-FENDER Z08 (Anti-Drone Gun), (iv) D-FENDER Z09 (Anti-Drone), and (v) D-FENDER Z10 (Anti-Drone). (Annexure-1) The listings variously described the products as being “trusted by Defence”, offering a range of upto 2.5 km with RF/GNSS/Wi-Fi/control-link disruption of upto 230W output across multiple frequency bands (0.4-5.8 GHz), and as being “mission-ready under extreme conditions” and suited for “high-risk zones”. None of these listings, as observed by CCPA, carried any disclosure whatsoever regarding the licensing requirements, the restricted nature of the equipment, or the penal consequences of unauthorised possession or use under the applicable laws, and the conduct of Javiat Aerospace accordingly appeared to violate the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and other applicable laws.
7. From the perusal of the preliminary inquiry report, it was found that, considering the above statutory framework and the consumer rights defined under Section 2(9) of the Act including the right to be informed about the quality, standard and legal status of goods, and the right to be protected against goods hazardous to life and property, CCPA formed a prima facie view that any consumer viewing such listings would be unable to ascertain that lawful possession or use of the said devices requires prior Government authorisation, and that such information appeared to be deliberately concealed. This, prima facie, amounted to a violation of consumer rights under Section 2(9),misleading advertisement under Section 2(28), and unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act, as well as a violation of Rule 4(3) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 (which prohibits adoption of unfair trade practice by an e- commerce entity), which impacted consumers as a class.
8. Accordingly, CCPA issued a Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2026 (F. No. CCPA-2/16/2026-CCPA) to Javiat Aerospace, 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. Javiat Aerospace was further directed to furnish, within fifteen days:
i. the source of procurement/import of the said Anti-Drone/Drone Jammer and copies of all import licences, invoices and related documents,
ii. copies of all regulatory approvals/authorisations obtained from WPC/DoT/DGFT/Cabinet ~ Secretariat/MHA for manufacture, import, possession, sale and intended use of the said equipment,
iii. the legal basis on which it was offering the said restricted wireless equipment for commercial sale to consumers through its website,
iv. the number of units sold, if any, during the preceding two years with complete purchaser details, ‘
v. details of any third-party sellers/vendors listing similar equipment on its website,
vi. steps taken to immediately discontinue the sale of such equipment and prevent recurrence of such listings, and
vii. a complete list of similar radio frequency/wireless transmitting equipment currently or previously offered for sale through its website.
9. In response, Javiat Aerospace submitted a reply dated 23.02.2026 by e-mail, wherein it submitted that:
i. the referenced product was presently only at the design and research & development stage, and that no manufacturing, import, testing, sale, supply or commercial deployment had been undertaken,
ii. the Company is an emerging aerospace technology startup developing indigenous counter-UAS solutions strictly for authorised Government and defence agencies, subject to statutory approvals and regulatory clearances,
iii. it had already initiated regulatory compliance measures, including submission of an application for a Dealer Possession Licence (‘DPL’), and that police verification in connection with the said application had been completed at its office premises, and that it had been advised during verification to establish requisite infrastructure before applying for manufacturing and testing licences. A copy of the DPL application (Application ID: DP040320250907860) was enclosed with the said reply,
iv. the company acknowledged that listing such restricted equipment before obtaining statutory approvals may give an unintended impression of commercial availability, though there was no intention to mislead consumers or facilitate unlawful sale, and the listing was intended solely to present its R&D intent and engage with authorised institutional stakeholders,
v. the image used on its website was stated to be a representative conceptual image, sourced from open-source material and Al-generated visuals for illustrative purposes only, and not an image of a manufactured or operational product, and
vi. it had immediately disabled and removed the product listing upon receipt of the Notice and initiated an internal compliance review.
10. On examination of the said reply, CCPA found that the DPL application enclosed by the Company was itself incomplete and the scrutiny remarks recorded thereon reflected that the GST number of the authorised person and a signed CIN certificate had not been submitted, and the application was accordingly found “Not Ok” on more than one count. Also, the said application, on its own declaration, recorded that the applicant would not commence dealing in wireless transmitting apparatus before issuance of the possession licence, thereby confirming that no licence or regulatory approval of any description was held by the Company at the time the impugned product was listed on its publicly accessible website. CCPA accordingly found the reply unsatisfactory and insufficient to discharge the burden placed on Javiat Aerospace, and was satisfied, in terms of Section 19 of the Act, that a prima facie case of violation of consumer rights and unfair trade practice existed warranting detailed investigation.
11. Accordingly, vide letter 02.03.2026, CCPA referred the matter to the Director General (Investigation), CCPA, under Section 19 & 22 of the Act, for detailed investigation into, inter alia: whether Javiat Aerospace listed/hosted/advertised restricted wireless transmitting devices and the exact duration and visibility of such listings, whether such listing constitutes an ‘offer for sale’, ‘advertisement’ or ‘promotion’ under the Act, irrespective of whether actual sales occurred, whether any enquiries, communications, quotations or negotiations were undertaken with prospective buyers, whether any backend commercial arrangements, pre-booking, vendor tie-ups or revenue model were associated with such listings, whether adequate statutory disclosures were provided to consumers at the time of listing, and whether the conduct of the Company amounts to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act.
12. The Director General (Investigation) submitted its Investigation Report dated 09.06.2026, recording the following findings:
i. The Company did not furish any response to the Notices dated 10.04.2026 and 19.05.2026, or to the Final Reminders dated 20.04.2026 and 25.05.2026, reflecting wilful non-compliance and disregard towards the regulatory authority.
ii. Although the impugned product listing was removed from the Company’s website following receipt of the Show Cause Notice, such removal does not absolve the Company of liability for the period during which the product remained accessible for view/enquiry on the website, nor does the Company’s claim of having undertaken no manufacturing, sale or deployment mitigate the violation, since the listing remained accessible to the public and exposed consumers to legal and safety risk during the period in question.
ii. The Company’s website was, at the time of investigation, found to be either non-functional or inaccessible, with all content relating to the drone category having been removed, a separate “Quality Assurance & Certificates” section on the website was also found to be non-functional, raising concerns regarding the transparency of the certifications and compliance documentation claimed by the Company.
iv. The product listings, as captured, contained detailed operational and performance claims including “trusted by Defence”, suitability for “high-risk zones”, and being “mission-ready under extreme conditions” which were found to be inconsistent with the Company’s submission that the product was merely at a conceptual, design and R&D stage.
v. The Company’s simultaneous submission of a DPL application covering five units of the very “D-FENDER” product that it described as merely conceptual and represented only through Al-generated/open-source visuals was found to be internally contradictory and inconsistent with its stated position.
vi. Examination of the DPL application further revealed that the compliance requirements thereunder were incomplete at the time of submission, and that, on the Company’s own declaration, no licence or regulatory approval had been granted by the competent authority as of the date on which the product was listed on the website.
13. Based on the above, the Investigation Report concluded that Javiat Aerospace is in violation of Sections 2(9), 2(28) and 2(47) of the Act, has acted contrary to the CCPA Advisory dated 29.04.2022, and is in violation of the applicable statutory/regulatory framework governing restricted wireless/radio communication equipment (including the Telecommunications Act, 2023, the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the MHA Guidelines dated 10.03.2023, and the Cabinet Secretariat Guidelines for Procurement, Possession and Use of Jammers, 2025), and is in violation of Rule 4(3) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
14. The Investigation Report was shared with Javiat Aerospace, calling upon it to file its comments and the matter was listed for hearing on 14.07.2026.
15. At the hearing held on 14.07.2026, no one appeared on behalf of Javiat Aerospace, nor was any reply or comment on the Investigation Report placed on record by the said date.
16. The matter was accordingly listed for a further hearing on 27.07.20286, at which the Company representative appeared and submitted that the listings were solely for research and development purpose. Also, the party contented that it only sells components of the drone; however the images listed on its website does not support this contention. Thereafter the opposite party was directed by the Authority to furnish, within 7 days, its written response/comments on the Investigation Report, together with the Company’s Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, details with the Registrar of Companies, and a statement indicating the number of drones shared/supplied by it.
17. By a further communication dated 11.08.2026, the Authority, additionally called upon Javiat Aerospace to furnish details of all sellers/vendors, including their contact details, residence/office address, GST number and PAN number, and the number of units sold, if any, together with details of purchasers to whom the product had been supplied during the preceding two years. No response have been received from Javiat Aerospace till date.
18. Pursuant to the directions issued in the hearing held on 27.07.2026, Javiat Aerospace placed on record copies of its Certificate of Incorporation, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, Certificate of Recognition as a Startup issued by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, its PAN card, and the TAN allotment letter issued by the Income Tax Department. The Authority notes that the documents so furnished pertain only to the incorporation, registration and statutory identification of the Company, and that the Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, and the statement as to the number of drones shared/supplied, each of which had been specifically directed to be furnished at the hearing dated 27.07.2026, were not furnished.
19. In view of the said partial compliance, the Authority, vide letter dated 18.08.2026, granted Javiat Aerospace a further and final period of 3 (three) days from receipt of the said communication to furnish its complete response/comments along with the remaining documents, expressly cautioning that no further extension or adjournment would be considered, and that failure to comply within the stipulated time would result in the Authority proceeding to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the material already available on record. Thereafter, a telephonic conversation was also held with Javiat Aerospace, wherein the said documents were once again called for. However, despite the said communication and the lapse of the stipulated period, no response or documents have been received from Javiat Aerospace till date.
20. The Authority notes that Javiat Aerospace was afforded repeated and specific opportunities to place its case, evidence and supporting documents on record at every stage of these proceedings.
21. The Authority further finds that the Company’s own conduct is internally inconsistent with its stated defence. A company that genuinely regarded its product as being at a conceptual, pre-manufacture stage, represented only through Al-generated or open-source imagery, would ordinarily have no occasion to simultaneously apply for a Dealer Possession Licence for the very same product, complete with technical literature, frequency bands and RF power ratings, as reflected in DPL Application No. DP040320250907860. The filing of such an application demonstrates that the equipment in question was, at the least, in a state of readiness that went beyond a purely conceptual or illustrative stage, and the public listing of the same on the Company’s website without any disclosure whatsoever of the restricted nature of the equipment or the licensing requirements applicable thereto, cannot, in the view of the Authority, be explained away as an innocuous R&D disclosure.
22. The Authority also notes, with concern, that the Company’s engagement with the regulatory process was itself inconsistent: while it filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice within the time allowed, it thereafter failed, across four separate communications (Notice dated 10.04. 2026, Reminder dated 20.04.2026, Notice dated 19.05.2026, and Reminder dated 25.05.2026), to furnish even the basic documentary evidence called for by the Investigation Wing, and even upon a specific direction issued at a hearing at which it was represented, again failed to furnish the Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, and the statement as to drones shared/supplied.
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
ii. 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. Javiat Aerospace 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, Javiat Aerospace cannot take refuge in the contention that the listings were merely enquiry-based, targeted at a specialised clientele, or did not result in @ completed transaction. Javiat Aerospace’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, Javiat Aerospace’s listings, by omitting any reference to the mandatory licensing regime while marketing the capability and purported operational readiness of restricted jamming equipment described as being “trusted by Defence” and “mission-ready”, 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”. Javiat Aerospace, by listing and promoting restricted wireless jamming equipment on its e-commerce platform without prior statutory authorisation and without disclosure of the licensing restrictions applicable thereto, is accordingly in violation of Rule 4(3) of the said Rules.
26. Having regard to the foregoing, the Authority records the following findings:
i. Javiat Aerospace Private Limited is in violation of Sections 2(9), 2(28) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in respect of its listing/hosting/advertisement of the five D-FENDER products (Z01, Z06, Z08, Z09 and Z10) without disclosure of the applicable licensing/regulatory restrictions.
ii. Javiat Aerospace’s conduct is contrary to the CCPA Advisory dated 29.04.2022.
iii. Javiat Aerospace is in violation of Rule 4(3) of the Consumer Protection (ECommerce) Rules, 2020.
iv. Javiat Aerospace failed to cooperate with the investigation conducted under Section 22 of the Act, and failed to furnish the documents and information specifically directed to be furnished at the hearing dated 27.07.2026, despite a final opportunity granted vide letter dated 18.08.2026.
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, ССРPA 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/antidoron equipment (including, but not limited to, the “D-FENDER” range of products) on its website or any other platform, unless and until it: (a) 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), (b) 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 (c) 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.
