On 28 October 2026, India's Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) fined Justdial Rs 10 lakh for listing ammonium nitrate without checking sellers' PESO licences, PTI reported. The sum is small. The reasoning behind it matters more, because it narrows what the label 'intermediary' can protect in India.
The strongest case for the regulator
The facts are uncomfortable for any platform. Ammonium nitrate is a regulated explosive precursor, and MediaNama's report says the listings carried prices, photos and 'Call Now' and 'Get Best Price' buttons. Some sellers had 'Verified' labels, and one listing used images of explosions. None disclosed PESO licences, buyer eligibility or legal restrictions. MediaNama also reports that some listings stayed up for three to 20 years despite Justdial's claim of regular review.
A consumer-protection regulator can reasonably say that a platform which earns subscription revenue from these sellers, and tells buyers they are 'Verified', has taken on some responsibility for the goods. Nobody serious argues that explosives should be one click away.
What the CCPA rejected
Justdial made three arguments, per MediaNama. It said it is an online directory and not an e-commerce marketplace. It said Section 79 of the IT Act gave it conditional protection. It said verifying licences was the sellers' job. The CCPA rejected all three.
On the first, MediaNama quotes the authority: 'A telephone directory does not rank products.' The CCPA pointed to ranking, price and photo display, 'Verified' and 'Trust' badges, one-click calling and paid prominence. It held that these features facilitate transactions even though Justdial neither processes payments nor delivers goods.
On the second, MediaNama reports that the CCPA found Justdial 'had not produced evidence showing that its verification and moderation systems worked for the disputed listings.' I have not read the order itself, so I rely on that account. The reasoning is that safe harbour has to be earned with working processes, and a general claim of intermediary status does not earn it.
The CCPA also held that removing the listings after the notice 'does not cure the contravention for the period during which the listings remained available.' It said its powers do not depend on users paying Justdial directly.
Why the legal hook is different from Shreya Singhal
This ruling does not directly contradict India's main intermediary-liability precedent, but it works around it. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court read down Section 79(3)(b). Paragraph 119 holds that an intermediary must remove material only on 'actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government,' and only for unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2). That protects speech. It stops private complainants from forcing takedowns by threatening liability.
The Justdial case is not about speech. It concerns the sale of a regulated product and a platform's own representations to buyers. The authority relied on the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. Rule 4(3) bars any e-commerce entity from adopting 'any unfair trade practice.' Rule 5 sets out the liabilities of marketplace entities and ties their Section 79 exemption to compliance with the intermediary guidelines. MediaNama reports violations of Rules 4(3) and 5, along with provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The practical effect is that the court-order standard from Shreya Singhal no longer settles when a platform's duty begins. Where a regulator treats the platform's own badges and ranking as the problem, liability attaches to the platform's conduct and not to the third-party content it hosts.
The proportionality problem
The outcome is defensible, but the way it was reached carries risks that anyone who wants an open internet should watch.
First, the CCPA's logic could be applied well beyond explosives. If ranking and a 'Verified' badge make a directory an e-commerce entity, the same reasoning reaches classifieds, local-services listings and B2B portals. This is a wider category than the one the 2020 Rules were written around. The Rules define a marketplace entity as one providing a platform 'to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers.' That is a broad phrase, and the CCPA read it generously.
Second, the evidentiary burden has moved. A platform now has to show that its verification worked for the specific listings at issue. For small platforms, a duty to check every seller's licence across thousands of product categories is a barrier to entry. Large incumbents can absorb it. Smaller rivals cannot.
Third, the case sits within a wider sweep. Inc42 reported that action against seven platforms, including IndiaMART and Justdial, led to the delisting of 3,940 sellers and listing entries. Of these, 3,092 were on IndiaMART, 421 on ExportersIndia, 206 on Justdial and 166 on TradeIndia. Mass delisting under regulatory pressure tends to remove legitimate sellers too, such as licensed fertiliser traders. The sweep was prompted by hazardous-chemical listings, so the harm it targets is real. But the speed and scale of delisting leave little room for appeal.
A narrower rule would serve better
The better rule is the one the CCPA's reasoning already points to, stated openly. Platforms should be liable for the representations they make themselves, such as 'Verified' and 'Trust' badges. They should also be required to run category-specific checks for a short, enumerated list of dangerous goods. They should not face a general duty to vet every seller on a platform.
That approach protects the safe harbour for ordinary hosting and keeps strict obligations for a small number of high-risk categories. It also gives platforms notice. Today a business learns where the line sits only after an enforcement action.
The CCPA could help by publishing the order's reasoning in a form that guides other platforms, and by issuing sector guidance on regulated goods before the next penalty. Justdial told exchanges it had discontinued the listings and was reviewing the order, so an appeal is possible. If it goes to a court, the question to watch is whether a consumer regulator can define 'facilitation' by reference to platform design without Parliament amending the Rules.
The Rs 10 lakh fine is the statutory maximum for a first contravention, per PTI. The cost to Justdial is small. The lasting effect is on the legal assumption that carrying an intermediary label is enough to avoid responsibility for how a platform presents what it hosts.