Meta tells Bombay HC it disabled Blink Digital’s ad accounts over alleged scam and sexual services ads

Meta has told the Bombay High Court (HC) that it disabled advertising agency Blink Digital India’s four Business Manager accounts because Blink allegedly offered advertisers “limitless spend” and allowed ads promoting scams and sexual services, Storyboard18 reported. Meta’s counsel made these arguments before Justice Sandeep V Marne on October 12. The court has not ruled on them.

This is the first time Meta’s reasons have come up in court. Neither of the court’s earlier orders, dated September 10 and September 17, recorded why Meta disabled the accounts, as MediaNama reported in September.

Meta also argued that the dispute belongs in a California court under Californian law. The court adjourned the hearing to October 13 at 4:30 pm.

What did Meta argue?

According to Storyboard18, Meta’s counsel made the following arguments:

“Limitless spend”: Blink attracted advertisers by offering spending without the limits Meta usually imposes. Meta uses these limits to assess an advertiser’s creditworthiness and ability to pay before allowing unlimited advertising.
Scam and sexual services ads: Blink allowed ads promoting scams and sexual services, which violate Meta’s policies and are not permissible under Indian law.
Timeline: Meta disabled the four accounts on August 3 and gave Blink its reasons on August 4.
California jurisdiction: An exclusive jurisdiction clause in Meta’s Commercial Terms requires disputes to be heard in California under Californian law. Citing Supreme Court rulings on foreign jurisdiction clauses, Meta’s counsel argued that Blink must show its case falls within a recognised exception to avoid the clause.
Facebook India’s role: Facebook India Online Services, the first defendant, had no role in disabling the accounts because Meta Platforms Inc. in the US manages them. Meta argued that the court cannot grant the relief Blink seeks against Facebook India alone.
Global business: Blink’s business is not confined to India because it places ads for global advertisers.
Contract hierarchy: Meta’s Commercial Terms are the principal agreement, and two linked agreements terminate automatically if Meta terminates the principal agreement. Meta sought time to file a note explaining this hierarchy, which led to the adjournment.

Storyboard18 noted that these allegations form part of Meta’s defence and are not findings of the court.

What does Blink want?

Blink has sought the following relief from the court:

Restoration of its Business Manager accounts and corporate pages.
A declaration that Meta’s actions were “arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate” and contrary to law and Meta’s own published terms.
A declaration that Meta still recognises Blink as a managed agency partner.
A permanent injunction preventing Meta from disabling or restricting its accounts and pages.
Rs 1,158 crore in damages.

The HC registry has objected to the damages claim at the filing stage, asking Blink to explain how it calculated lost future profits and to keep the amount consistent across the plaint. These are procedural objections, not a ruling on the claim.

Blink’s counsel objected to the timing of Meta’s filings. According to the counsel, Meta’s application, affirmed on September 24, reached Blink only on the Friday night before the hearing. The counsel called this a tactic to prolong the case.

How did the case get here?

September 8: Blink filed the suit.
September 10: Justice Abhay Ahuja allowed Blink to sue Meta Platforms Inc., the US parent company, in Mumbai. Blink argued that part of the dispute arose in Mumbai because it received Meta’s notices there.
September 17: Meta told the court that it would preserve Blink’s data until the next hearing.
October 12: Meta set out its reasons for disabling the accounts and challenged the court’s jurisdiction.

Meta’s argument for California jurisdiction challenges the basis on which the court allowed the case to proceed in Mumbai on September 10. If the court accepts Meta’s argument, Blink would have to pursue its claims in California under Californian law.

Meta disclosed its reasons in another case only after a court ordered it to: In August, the Delhi HC directed Meta to place on record its reasons for disabling the Instagram account of SEBI-registered analyst Aakanksha Gupta. Meta’s counsel then said its preliminary investigation had found “a genuine case of adult solicitation”.

Rule 4(8) of the IT Rules, 2021, requires large platforms to tell users why they removed information and give them an opportunity to dispute the decision. These obligations apply to content. Lawyer Akshat Agrawal noted that the rules do not refer to accounts. Therefore, when a platform terminates an account, its actions are governed by contract.

Meta’s own ad review is under scrutiny: In July, Meta defended its ad review process as “robust” after Instagram ran ads linked to child sexual abuse material. On October 7, Meta announced new AI tools to detect ads that appear harmless but direct users to illegal content outside its platforms.

What remains unclear?

Did Meta’s own ad review process approve the scam and sexual services ads before they ran?
Did Meta warn Blink or give it an opportunity to respond before disabling the accounts on August 3?
Did Meta grant Blink higher spending limits at any point as a managed agency partner?
How many of Blink’s advertisers lost access to their campaigns, and were any of them unconnected to the alleged violations?
How many Indian agencies has Meta terminated, and how many has it reinstated? Meta does not publish this information.