[Misleading Advertisement] Maharashtra Consumer Commission Orders Meta To Pay ₹25K Compensation To Facebook User

A Consumer Commission in Maharashtra recently directed Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd and Meta Platforms, Ind to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to a Facebook user who had purchased a pair of shoes for Rs.599/ on Facebook but the same was not delivered to him. In its order, the Gondia District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Maharashtra) [presided over by Bhaskar B. Yogi, President, and Sarita B. Raipure Member] observed that the complainant had suffered financial loss due to misleading advertisement and therefore, it was binding upon the website companies to compensate for the loss. The case in brief One Tribhuvan (Complainant) is a Facebook user, and in September 2020, he noticed an advertisement run by Marya Studio offering shoes of Nike Company for Rs. 599/-. As Facebook was running the advertisement of Marya Studio on its platform, the Complainant did not doubt its authenticity, and immediately placed the order for shoes and paid the requisite amount through his debit card. Thereafter, as per the complaint, he waited for a long time but he did not receive any text or call from the Marya Studio conveying shipping details of the product. He found that even Facebook was not containing any contact details of the said Marya Studio, therefore, he googled Marya Studio customer care number, and then he came to the website www.consumersathi.com which shows 4-5 Marya Studio Customer Care Numbers. When he called on one of the numbers, one person received the call and introduced himself as Marya Studio Customer Care and in name of a refund, he duped the complainant for Rs.6969/- Thereafter, the Complainant sent mail to Facebook and sought information of Marya Studio and some compensation, but Facebook never replied. Therefore the Complainant through his advocate Sagar Chavhan approached Consumer Commission, Gondia, filed a complaint against Facebook and sought various reliefs. Finally, on June 30, 2022, the Consumer Commission allowed this complaint and held that Facebook indeed ran a misleading advertisement. However, the Commission did note that the transaction of buying shoes at Rs. 599/- was due to a misleading advertisement but the second transaction of sharing OTP and personal bank details by the complainant was due to his unawareness of the scam thus it was contributory negligence for which Facebook or Meta was not responsible. However, the Commission did add thus: "It is legal as well as social duty and obligation of the opposite party funding to help get a citizens scam advice service set-up for better protection of Consumer Rights of Indian Consumers." Furthermore, the Consumer Commission, Gondia (Maharashtra) directed Facebook To pay the price of the product not delivered i.e. Rs. 599/- to the complainant and Rs. 25,000/- in total for mental agony and legal costs. To comply the Consumer Protection (e-commerce) Rules, 2020 in letter and spirit and submit a report of compliance within a period of 45 days to this commission. To run scam-related awareness advertisements on various media, social sites, T.V. OTT platform mobile apps, WhatsApp, Instagram etc. to create awareness regarding various scams on regular basis to neutralize the impact of misleading advertisements and submit compliance report quarterly for a period of two years to this commission.

[Misleading Advertisement] Maharashtra Consumer Commission Orders Meta To Pay ₹25K Compensation To Facebook User

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

[Misleading Advertisement] Maharashtra Consumer Commission Orders Meta To Pay ₹25K Compensation To Facebook User

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers