Court rules that statutory obligations under India's IT Act and Intermediary Guidelines prevail over exclusive California jurisdiction clauses in contracts with Meta
In a significant judgment dated 27 October 2026, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, rejected the application filed by Meta Platforms Inc. seeking return of plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The suit was filed by Blink Digital (India) Private Limited against Meta Platforms Inc. and Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. for alleged arbitrary disablement of its digital advertising business accounts on platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.
Meta had contended that all commercial disputes arising out of the use of its platforms are subject to exclusive jurisdiction clauses in its Terms of Service and Commercial Terms, which specify the courts of California, USA, as the sole forum for dispute resolution and provide for the application of Californian law. Accordingly, Meta sought to have the plaint returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
However, the Court carefully examined the complex contractual relationship between the parties, which involved multiple contracts including the overarching Terms of Service and Commercial Terms between Blink Digital and Meta Platforms Inc., as well as Self-Serve Ad Terms and Country-Specific Ads Terms involving Facebook India. The Court observed that Facebook India, which had not challenged the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, operates from Mumbai and has an active role in the disputed transactions, including raising invoices and communication with the Plaintiff.
Crucially, the Court found that the Plaintiff's suit did not merely concern contractual breaches but also alleged violations of statutory obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. These laws impose mandatory due diligence and grievance redressal obligations on significant social media intermediaries operating in India, including Meta and Facebook India.
The Court noted that Meta itself had invoked these statutory provisions in pre-suit correspondence to justify its actions, thereby acknowledging the applicability of Indian law. It held that the exclusive foreign jurisdiction and governing law clauses in the contracts, which exclude conflict of law provisions, could not oust the jurisdiction of Indian courts to adjudicate alleged breaches of Indian statutory law.
Further, the Court observed that the causes of action against Meta and Facebook India were intertwined and that Facebook India's presence and business operations in Mumbai vested the Bombay High Court with territorial jurisdiction over at least part of the dispute. It held that the plaint could not be returned in part and dismissed Meta's application.
The Court also rejected Meta's contention that the plaint suppressed the exclusive jurisdiction clauses since all contracts containing these clauses were annexed to the plaint. It clarified that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to plead such jurisdiction ouster clauses, as it is a defense matter for the defendant to raise and prove.
The judgment underscores the principle that private contracts cannot override mandatory statutory provisions enacted for public interest and protection of users in India. It also affirms that Indian courts have territorial jurisdiction to examine compliance with Indian laws by significant social media intermediaries, notwithstanding exclusive foreign jurisdiction clauses.
The Bombay High Court's decision reinforces the accountability of global digital platforms to Indian laws when operating in India, particularly concerning user grievance mechanisms and procedural fairness in actions such as disabling accounts.
The suit will now proceed in the Bombay High Court, with the interim application for temporary injunction listed for hearing on 2 November 2026.
Bottom Line:
Commercial Suit - Return of plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 CPC - Meta sought return of plaint relying on exclusive foreign jurisdiction clauses in Terms of Service and Commercial Terms conferring jurisdiction on California Courts - Suit also alleged breach of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 - Held, dispute was not purely contractual; allegations of statutory violations by significant social media intermediaries clothed Bombay High Court with territorial jurisdiction - Californian Courts, under contractual choice of law clauses excluding conflict of law provisions, could not adjudicate alleged breaches of Indian statutory obligations - Defendant No.1 having office in Mumbai had not objected to jurisdiction - Part of plaint cannot be returned where causes of action against defendants are intertwined - Application dismissed.
Statutory provision(s): Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 7 Rule 10, Indian Contract Act, 1872 Sections 23 and 28
Meta Platforms Inc. v. Blink Digital (India) Private Limited, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004140
