Bombay HC Upholds Its Jurisdiction Over Meta Despite California Forum Clause
Judgment 27.10.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Interim Application No.6550 of 2026 of Meta Platforms in Commercial Suit (L) No.31454 of 2026 of Blink Digital (India) Private Limited Vs. Facebook Indian Online Services Private Limited & Meta Platforms Inc.
Plaintiff Blink Digital has filed the commercial suit for restoration of its business manager accounts,
In its Suit, Plaintiff has challenged the action of the Defendants in disabling its four business manager accounts on 4 August 2026 together with approximately 9,000 advertising accounts and other business assets comprised within them. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking restoration of its Business Manager accounts, Ad Accounts, Facebook pages, Instagram accounts, etc. Defendant No. 1 is an Indian incorporated entity which has not questioned the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant No.2, which is based in USA and which is the parent company of Defendant No.1.
Plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing digital advertising, media planning and buying, creative and marketing communication services to corporate clients across India and abroad. It plans and manages digital advertising campaigns on behalf of its clients across various digital platforms including the platforms operated by the Defendants. Defendant No.2-Meta is a Company incorporated under the laws of State of Delaware, USA which provides Facebook services i.e. website www.facebook.com and corresponding applications for mobile devices and tablets, as well as Instagram services i.e. website www.instagram.com and corresponding applications for mobile devices and tablets. Defendant No.1-Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. (Facebook India) is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 is the entity through which the Defendants collectively transact the business with the Indian advertisers.
Plaintiff uses the platform of the Defendant for advertising services to its clients. According to the Plaintiff, Defendants’ advertising infrastructure is organized in a strict hierarchy comprising of Meta Terms of Services, Meta Commercial Terms, Self-Serve Ad Terms, Meta Account Integrity Policy, Meta Advertising Restrictions, Meta Advertising Standards, etc. Plaintiff used to have four Business Manager Accounts with the Defendants together with 9000 advertising Accounts and other business assets comprised within them 5) On 4 August 2026, Defendants disabled all the Business Manager Accounts of the Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the action of disablement of its Business Manager Accounts on 4 August 2026, Plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking various declaratory, injunctive, as well as monetary reliefs. Plaintiff has sought a declaration that the actions of the Defendants in disabling the Business Manager Accounts are arbitrary and in breach of provisions of law, as well as Defendant’s own published terms and policies. Plaintiff has sought a declaration that the Defendants must continue to recognize Plaintiff as their Managed Agency Partner. Plaintiff has sought injunction against the Defendants from disabling, removing, restricting, suspending or otherwise interfering with Plaintiffs Business Manager Accounts, Facebook Page, Instagram account or any other business asset. Plaintiff has also sought an injunction against the Defendants from deleting, destroying or rendering irrecoverable any data or contents in its Business Manager Accounts, Advertising Accounts, Facebook pages or Instagram Accounts. Plaintiff has also sought recovery of Rs.1000 crores being damages suffered by it on account of the impugned actions of the Defendants.
One of the vital grounds on which the action of disablement of accounts is challenged by the Plaintiff is violation of provisions of the IT Act and the Intermediary Rules. Plaintiff holds both the Defendants responsible for violating the IT Act and the Intermediary Rules.
The agreement between the Plaintiff and Meta Platforms provided for dispute resolution in the Courts of California, USA and in accordance with the Californian Laws. Therefore, the application for return of the plaint was filed.
Plaintiff has thus pleaded that both the Defendants are ‘intermediaries’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act, as well as ‘significant social media intermediaries’ for the purpose of application of provisions of the Intermediary Rules.
In my view therefore, allegations of violation of provisions of the Intermediary Rules raised by Plaintiff and Meta clearly clothes this Court with the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit, notwithstanding the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the Terms of Service and the Commercial Terms.
Another aspect of the jurisdictional facet is that Plaintiff also complains about deletion of its individual Facebook and Instagram pages. As observed above, under Clause 4.4 of the Terms of Service, a consumer is entitled to maintain action in court of his/her own country. Plaintiff would stand in capacity as consumer in relation to its own Facebook and Instagram pages. Therefore, this prayer of Plaintiff for restoration of its Facebook and Instagram pages would lie before this Court even as per Clause 4.4. of the Terms of Service. Thus this part of the suit would lie before this Court even against Meta.
Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the view that Defendant No.2-Meta has failed to demonstrate that this Court totally lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Defendant No. 1 has not raised the objection of jurisdiction. So far as the allegations of violation of provisions of the IT Act and the Intermediary Rules are concerned, the Courts in California cannot decide the said issues, even assuming that the contractual arrangement of jurisdiction of foreign courts and applicability of foreign law is enforceable. The judgments of Madras High Court prima facie indicate that the jurisdiction of this Court would not be ousted. There can therefore be no doubt to the position that the suit is fully maintainable before this Court qua one of the Defendants and it is also partly maintainable (even going by exclusive jurisdiction clauses) against both the Defendant. It is also not permissible to return part of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code and partly decide the same by this Court. The application filed by Defendant No.2 therefore cannot be allowed and the same deserves dismissal. It however needs to be clarified that the findings recorded on the issue of territorial jurisdiction are in the context of application for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code and the issue of jurisdiction can be decided independently during the course of trial of the suit.
