The Bombay High Court is expected to deliver its ruling within three to four days on whether digital advertising agency Blink Digital can pursue its dispute with Meta in India despite a contractual clause requiring disputes to be heard in California.
The case centres on Meta’s terms of service, which specify Californian law and a designated foreign jurisdiction for resolving disputes. Blink Digital has argued that such clauses should not automatically prevent Indian courts from hearing claims involving businesses operating in the country, particularly when standard platform contracts offer limited scope for negotiation.
The dispute follows the disabling of Blink Digital’s business and advertising accounts on Meta’s platforms. The agency is seeking restoration of access, recognition as a managed agency partner and Rs 1,158 crore in damages and compensation.
During Friday’s hearing, Blink Digital argued that businesses using global technology platforms often have little practical choice but to accept standard contractual terms. Its counsel cited overseas judgments concerning online contracts and a Madras High Court ruling involving Google, which examined the enforceability of clauses excluding Indian courts and law.
The agency also invoked the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation case, arguing that a contract’s acceptance does not necessarily make its terms fair when the parties have unequal bargaining power. It submitted that Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, which addresses agreements opposed to public policy, could be relevant to the dispute.
Meta countered that Blink Digital had not specifically challenged the validity of the jurisdiction clauses in its suit. According to the company, the agency could not seek restoration of its accounts under the existing contract while simultaneously arguing that its jurisdiction provisions should not apply.
Meta maintained that a global platform needs contractual certainty over where disputes are heard. It argued that Blink Digital must identify the specific clauses it considers unlawful and establish the legal grounds for challenging them.
The court also questioned Facebook India’s handling of the proceedings, noting that it had not filed the relevant pleadings despite earlier opportunities. Justice Sandeep V Marne questioned why the issue had been raised at this stage.
The ruling will determine the jurisdictional question in the present proceedings, with wider implications for disputes between Indian businesses and global technology platforms over standard contracts, foreign governing law and access to Indian courts.