Bombay HC Rejects Meta’s Plea To Shift ₹1,000-Crore Blink Digital Suit To California; Notes Facebook India Raised No Objection
· Free Press Journal
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected Meta Platforms Inc.’s plea to move a Rs 1,000-crore commercial dispute filed by digital advertising agency Blink Digital (India) Pvt. Ltd. to California, ruling that contractual clauses cannot override mandatory Indian laws. The court also noted that Meta’s Indian subsidiary, Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd., had not challenged the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Court Dismisses Meta’s Jurisdiction Plea
According to a Bar and Bench report, Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed Meta’s interim application seeking the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which would have allowed Blink Digital to present its case before a court in the United States.
Visit mchezo.co.za for more information.
The dispute arose after Meta disabled four of Blink Digital’s business manager accounts and around 9,000 associated advertising accounts in August 2026. The agency then filed a commercial suit against Meta and Facebook India.
Also Watch:
Indian Laws Override Contractual Clauses
Meta argued that its terms of service and commercial terms required disputes to be heard exclusively by courts in California under Californian law. However, the court held that the case involved more than a straightforward contractual disagreement, as the parties had also raised allegations concerning violations of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
“A private contract entered into between the parties regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of courts and the applicability of a foreign law cannot override statutory provisions of laws in India,” Justice Marne observed, as reported by Bar and Bench, adding that parties cannot contract out of mandatory local laws and non-derogable statutory provisions.
Court Questions California’s Jurisdiction Over IT Rules
The judge also questioned whether a California court could adjudicate allegations involving violations of Indian IT regulations. Since Meta’s standard terms excluded conflict-of-law provisions, the court said a California court would be restricted to contractual stipulations and Californian law and would be unable to decide disputes concerning alleged violations of India’s Intermediary Rules.
The court emphasised that technology companies operating in India remain subject to the country’s statutory framework. It noted that the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Rules were intended to ensure that significant social media intermediaries could not benefit from their Indian operations while avoiding obligations under Indian law.
Bombay HC Directs Meta Platforms To Remove Fake Delta Corp Social Media Accounts And AI-Generated Deepfake VideoFacebook India’s Position Strengthens Jurisdiction
A key consideration was Facebook India’s position in the case. The court recorded that the Indian subsidiary, which was the principal defendant, had not filed any written objection to the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction. Justice Marne said Meta could not raise a jurisdictional objection on behalf of its co-defendant when Facebook India had not independently challenged the court’s authority.
The court further observed that Facebook India has an office within its territorial jurisdiction and is subject to Indian IT laws. It held that the parties could not use a contractual clause to exclude the court’s jurisdiction over disputes involving the Indian subsidiary.
Commercial Suit To Proceed In Mumbai
Given the interconnected nature of the claims against both defendants, the court concluded that the plaint could not be returned in part. It accordingly dismissed Meta’s application, allowing the commercial suit to proceed before the Bombay High Court.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/