Meta cites California jurisdiction clause in Rs 1,158 crore Blink Digital case

MUMBAI: The dispute between Meta and Blink Digital is turning into a battle over more than disabled accounts, with the question of which court gets to call the shots taking centre stage. The Bombay High Court on Tuesday heard Meta’s arguments that contractual terms require commercial disputes to be resolved in California, as the company challenged the basis of Blink Digital India Pvt Ltd’s claims over four disabled Business Manager accounts.

The matter was heard by Justice Sandeep V Marne and will resume on 14 October. Blink is seeking restoration of its accounts and has claimed Rs 1,158 crore in damages and compensation from Meta Platforms, Inc. and Facebook India Online Services Pvt Ltd.

Meta points to a hierarchy of contracts

Appearing for Meta Platforms, Inc. and Facebook India Online Services, counsel argued that Blink’s claims must be assessed against the contractual arrangements governing its use of Meta’s products. He outlined four sets of agreements: the terms of service, commercial terms, self-serve advertising terms and country-specific advertising terms.

According to Meta’s submissions, these agreements must be read together to establish the respective obligations of the entities involved. Counsel argued that Blink’s pleadings referred to the defendants collectively without adequately distinguishing their contractual roles.

Meta also maintained that Facebook India was not a party to the principal terms of service and commercial terms in the manner suggested by Blink. Counsel argued that relief against the Indian entity alone would not be sufficient to restore the disabled accounts, as Meta Platforms, Inc. operates and controls the relevant platforms and advertising infrastructure.

These arguments form part of Meta’s broader challenge to the relief sought by Blink. They remain submissions by the company, rather than findings by the court.

Account suspension rights under scrutiny

Meta’s counsel referred to provisions in its terms of service that allow the platform to remove content, restrict features, suspend or disable accounts, and permanently terminate access in specified circumstances.

Counsel argued that the provisions permit action where Meta determines that a user has clearly, seriously or repeatedly violated its terms or policies. The clauses were cited in response to Blink’s principal demand for the restoration of its four Business Manager accounts.

The submissions also covered the self-serve advertising terms, which allow Meta to reject or remove advertisements and provide for measures such as ad cancellation, account suspension or termination in cases of non-compliance, subject to applicable law.

Meta’s arguments focused on the contractual basis for these powers and the appropriate forum for hearing Blink’s claims. The merits of the alleged policy violations were not the focus of the arguments described in the hearing account.

Why Meta wants the dispute heard in California

A central plank of Meta’s case is that Blink used its products for commercial purposes and agreed to the applicable terms. Counsel argued that the company should therefore be bound by the contractual dispute-resolution provisions.

He referred to clauses directing applicable non-consumer disputes to the US District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court in San Mateo County, with California law governing the relevant claims.

Meta also cited similar provisions in its commercial terms for business users located outside the US. Counsel argued that Blink could not accept the contractual arrangements governing its use of the platform and then seek to avoid the agreed jurisdiction.

The submissions also addressed Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, which is involved in the self-serve advertising terms. Counsel referred to provisions covering disputes involving Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, arguing that the relevant commercial claims were directed to California courts.

He further argued that the commercial terms take precedence over the terms of service where the two conflict, but that there was no conflict between the agreements on the question of exclusive jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction issue matters because Blink is seeking relief that would require Meta Platforms, Inc. to restore its accounts. Counsel argued that such relief would have to be directed against the US-based entity itself.

Blink seeks restoration and Rs 1,158 crore in damages

Blink approached the Bombay High Court after its Business Manager accounts and associated corporate pages on Meta’s platforms were disabled.

Its claims include requests for declarations that the disabling, removal or restriction of its accounts was arbitrary, unreasonable, disproportionate, unlawful and contrary to Meta’s published terms and policies. The company has also sought recognition as a managed agency partner and a permanent injunction against interference with its accounts and pages.

Meta, meanwhile, has argued that Facebook India did not operate or manage the relevant accounts and that the services were controlled by Meta Platforms, Inc. in the US.

The dispute therefore raises questions about both the contractual rights governing account suspensions and the legal entity against which relief can be granted, alongside the separate question of where the claims should be heard.

The Bombay High Court is scheduled to resume hearing the matter before Justice Sandeep V Marne on 14 October.