Allahabad High Court Flags Online Service Providers' Practice Of Targeting Searchers, Taking Consent Via OTP/Web Links

  • Allahabad High Court Flags Online Service Providers Practice Of Targeting Searchers, Taking Consent Via OTP/Web Links
    Listen to this Article

    The Allahabad High Court has flagged the practice of online service providers contacting people who have searched for certain content online and obtaining their consent through OTPs or web links, observing that such activities are in the public domain and affect the public at large.

    A Bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran made the observation while hearing a writ petition concerning an overseas education aspirant who alleged that a loan obtained for her proposed studies abroad was not canceled despite her request, ultimately affecting her father's CIBIL score.

    Hearing her case, the Court observed thus:

    "Since the matter is relating to such activities, which are existing in public domain and affects the public at large and it is an open truth that service providers often make calls and send text messages to those who have searched certain online contents and take consent online through OTP or by sharing web links, therefore, we are of the prima-facie opinion that such an issue need to be adressed vis-a-vis the merits of the matter".

    Briefly put, petitioner (Vallabhi Yadav) was desirous of pursuing education overseas. While searching online for a suitable college/school, she was contacted by personnel from Leverage Education (respondent no. 1).

    The petitioner was informed that they would provide services, including contacting an appropriate overseas educational institution and facilitating arrangements for funds required for fees and other expenses.

    Yadav thereafter came into contact with a counselor of Leverage Education for assistance in finding an educational institution and arranging funds.

    She also availed herself of the services of the managers of Techfino Capital Private Limited and another entity/person to obtain a loan facility.

    The Court was told that, on the assurance of Leverage Education, the petitioner availed the loan via web links and accepted it via OTP.

    However, despite her efforts, she was unable to secure an appropriate educational institution for the academic session. She consequently requested that the loan facility be canceled as it had become meaningless.

    Though Leverage Education representatives assured her that the loan facility would be withdrawn after deducting consultancy charges and other amounts, the loan was allegedly not cancelled.

    Now, since the loan installments were to be deducted from the bank account of Yadav's father, who was a salaried person, he requested his banker, State Bank of India, to place a "stop payment" on the account linked for loan repayment. The loan was subsequently cancelled.

    However, because of the default arising from the "stop payment", the loan was perhaps marked as 'bad debt' in the system. As a result, the CIBIL score of the petitioner's father, which stood at 900 when petitioner no. 1 contacted Leverage Education, fell to 681.

    The petitioners submitted that, due to the poor CIBIL score, the father was now finding it difficult to arrange financing for petitioner's further studies by availing another educational loan.

    Taking into account the petitioner's submissions, the Bench issued notices to the respondents on August 11, 2026. On September 16, counsel appeared for respondent no. 1 (Leverage Edu). However, none appeared for respondent nos. 2 to 5 despite service.

    Therefore, the Court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to take steps to serve notice upon the concerned respondents, including through the CJM, Gautam Budh Nagar, and the Registrars General of the High Courts of Karnataka and Bombay.

    The Amicus Curiae was also permitted to serve notice upon the counsel who usually appears for the Reserve Bank of India before the Allahabad High Court. The RBI's counsel was granted two weeks to seek instructions.

    The Court has granted two weeks to all respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh, to file their respective responses/counter-affidavits.

    The matter has been directed to be listed on October 13, 2026 at 2 PM.

    Case title - Vallabhi Yadav And Another vs. Nirdeshak/Prabhandhak Leverage Edu And 5 Others

    Click Here To Read/Download Order

    Sparsh Upadhyay

    Sparsh Upadhyay is an Associate Editor with LiveLaw.

    Next Story