Blink Digital seeks account restoration and Rs 1,158 crore damages from Meta

MUMBAI: Meta is seeking to take the Blink Digital dispute out of Indian courts, arguing that a contractual clause points to California, as the Bombay High Court hears a case over the disabling of four Business Manager accounts and a Rs 1,158 crore damages claim.

The court on Monday adjourned the matter to 13 October at 4:30 pm, with arguments centring on which Meta entity controlled the accounts, the contractual terms governing the relationship and whether the dispute can be heard in India.

During the hearing before Justice Sandeep V Marne, counsel for Meta argued that Facebook India Online Services Private Limited, the first defendant, had no role in disabling the accounts. According to Meta, the four Business Manager accounts were operated and managed by Meta Platforms, Inc., its US-based entity and the second defendant.

Meta also relied on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in its Commercial Terms, contending that disputes between the parties must be adjudicated in California under Californian law.

Blink Digital has approached the court seeking the restoration of its Business Manager accounts and associated corporate pages on Meta’s platforms. It has also sought damages and compensation of Rs 1,158 crore.

Meta’s counsel argued that Blink had relied on its contractual relationship with Facebook India and the applicability of Indian laws without adequately disclosing the provisions governing its relationship with Meta Platforms, Inc.

The defence submitted that the agreements between the parties formed a contractual hierarchy, with Meta’s Commercial Terms serving as the principal agreement. Two underlying agreements were inextricably linked to those terms and would automatically terminate if the principal agreement ended, counsel argued.

Meta said the complete contractual framework needed to be placed before the court to explain both the account termination and the relationship between the agreements.

On jurisdiction, the company maintained that the California clause was binding and that Blink could not sidestep the agreed forum without establishing that its case fell within legally recognised exceptions to foreign jurisdiction clauses.

Meta further argued that the relief sought by Blink could not be granted against Facebook India alone because the accounts were managed by the US entity. It also challenged Blink’s reliance on its relationship with the Indian defendant, contending that the agency’s business extended beyond India and included facilitating advertising for global clients.

Meta also defended the account termination by alleging that Blink had breached contractual terms and advertising policies.

According to its counsel, Blink attracted advertisers by offering what it described as “limitless spend”, suggesting that customers could advertise without the monetary restrictions ordinarily imposed by Meta.

The defence argued that spending restrictions were intended to assess advertisers’ creditworthiness and ability to pay before allowing unlimited advertising activity.

Meta’s counsel also alleged that Blink had permitted advertisements promoting scams and sexual services, which the company said violated its policies and were impermissible under Indian law.

According to submissions made in court, Meta terminated the four Business Manager accounts on 3 August and communicated its reasons on 4 August.

These remain allegations advanced by Meta in its defence and have not been established as judicial findings.

Blink’s suit challenges the disabling, removal and restriction of its Business Manager accounts and associated corporate pages. The company has sought a declaration that the actions were arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate, and contrary to applicable laws and Meta’s published terms and policies.

It has also sought a declaration that the defendants continue to recognise it as a managed agency partner. In addition, Blink wants a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disabling, removing, restricting or suspending its accounts and pages, or otherwise interfering with them.

Blink’s counsel raised objections over the timing of Meta’s filings, telling the court that an interlocutory application affirmed on 24 September had been served on the agency only on the preceding Friday night. The counsel said Blink had worked through the weekend to prepare its response and was ready to proceed, alleging that the delayed service was intended to prolong the proceedings.

Meta’s counsel sought time to prepare a note setting out the contractual hierarchy. The court subsequently adjourned the matter to Tuesday, 13 October, at 4:30 pm.

The damages claim has also attracted procedural scrutiny from the Bombay High Court registry at the filing stage. The registry has asked Blink to explain how the amount accounts for lost future profits and costs, provide separate details supporting the claim and ensure consistency in the amount stated across the plaint.

The queries concern the presentation and substantiation of the claim. They do not amount to a judicial determination of Blink’s entitlement to the compensation sought.

Blink has also sought permission to proceed against Meta Platforms, Inc., which is based in the US. Justice Abhay Ahuja granted that permission on 10 September, allowing the company to sue the foreign entity before the Bombay High Court.

Tuli & Co. is representing Blink Digital, while Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas is representing the Meta entities.

The immediate question is whether the dispute will be heard in Mumbai or under the California forum-selection clause. For Blink, however, the stakes extend beyond jurisdiction: the agency is seeking to recover access to its accounts while pursuing a claim worth Rs 1,158 crore. The next hearing will determine how the legal battle proceeds, not whether the damages claim is justified.