CCPA order against Flipkart for sale of non-BIS-compliant toys – key findings and implications
Background of the CCPA proceedings
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) initiated suo-moto action against Flipkart Internet Private Limited after noticing the availability of toys on its e-commerce platform that did not comply with the mandatory BIS standards prescribed under the Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020 (QCO, 2020). These non-compliant toys were treated as potentially unsafe, hazardous, and capable of causing injury, particularly to children.
Invoking powers under Section 18(2) and Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Act, 2019), the CCPA carried out a preliminary inquiry into multiple e-commerce platforms, including Flipkart, to examine the sale of toys that did not carry the required BIS Standard Mark. The preliminary inquiry indicated that even after the QCO, 2020 became effective from 01.01.2021, Flipkart had not exercised sufficient due diligence to ensure that only compliant toys were offered to consumers.
Based on these preliminary findings, the CCPA recorded that toys which did not conform to the mandatory BIS standards under the QCO, 2020 were being listed and sold on Flipkart. Since Section 17 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 (BIS Act, 2016) expressly prohibits manufacture, import, distribution, sale, hire, lease, storage or exhibition for sale of goods that are required to bear the Standard Mark under Section 16(1), such toys were liable to be treated as “defective” under Section 2(10) and as part of an “Unfair Trade Practice” under Section 2(47) of the Act, 2019.
Consequently, a notice dated 10.01.2023 was issued to Flipkart calling for its response regarding alleged contraventions of:
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020
- Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020 issued under
Section 16(1)of theBIS Act, 2016
Flipkart’s stand and submissions before CCPA
Flipkart, in its reply dated 30.01.2023, put forward a detailed defence centred on its claimed status as an intermediary:
Intermediary / safe harbour plea
Flipkart asserted that:
- It falls within the definition of “intermediary” under
Section 2(1)(w)of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000). - It is entitled to safe harbour protection under
Section 79(1)of theIT Act, 2000and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021). - As a result, it argued that it cannot be held liable for any third-party information, data or communication link made available or hosted on its platform.
Marketplace model and absence of seller role
Flipkart further contended that:
- It operates a marketplace-based e-commerce model via its website and app, providing a neutral technological interface that allows independent third-party sellers and buyers to transact.
- All products, including toys, are sold by independent sellers; Flipkart does not itself manufacture, import, distribute, sell, store or exhibit these items for sale, nor does it hold physical custody of the goods.
- It claimed not to be a party to the underlying contract of sale between seller and buyer.
Reliance on Seller Terms and statutory framework
Flipkart highlighted that:
- Sellers must accept Flipkart’s Seller Terms of Use (
ToUs), which require them not to host, upload or offer any product that violates applicable law. - Under
Section 17of theBIS Act, 2016, obligations regarding use of the Standard Mark rest with manufacturers, importers, distributors, sellers or lessors, and not with technological platforms. - It therefore argued that the
BIS Act, 2016does not apply to it as an intermediary. - Flipkart claimed to be fully compliant with its obligations as a “marketplace e-commerce entity” under
Rule 5of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, stressing thatRule 6(1)places specific duties relating to unfair trade practices on marketplace sellers, not the platform.
Accordingly, Flipkart argued that any allegation of “unfair trade practice” premised on BIS non-compliance was misconceived in relation to the platform.
Corrective steps claimed by Flipkart
Flipkart informed the CCPA that:
- The specific impugned listings identified in Annexure-1 to the notice had been taken down.
- Communications dated 19.01.2023 were sent to concerned sellers, informing them that their products had been made non-discoverable and calling upon them to furnish valid BIS certification, failing which the listings would be permanently removed.
Additional information sought and revenue details
The CCPA, finding that details of the concerned sellers were not furnished, issued a further communication on 18.04.2023. Flipkart subsequently disclosed seller particulars and later, on 05.12.2023, provided the following consolidated data for the period after 01.01.2021:
- Total toys sold by four identified sellers: 1,338 units
- Aggregate seller revenue: Rs. 5,45,559.694
- Flipkart’s platform fees from these transactions: Rs. 1,42,979.095
Individual proceedings were thereafter launched against the sellers “Happy Zone2”, “All Good Quality”, “Smile Makers” and “Optim V Rcommerce”.
Investigation by DG (Investigation) and key observations
A detailed investigation was ordered on 03.06.2025. The Director General (Investigation) submitted its report dated 19.12.2025, which contained several significant findings:
Continued listing of non-BIS toys
- Despite Flipkart’s assertion that the non-compliant toys mentioned in the show-cause notice had been delisted, the investigation revealed that toys without BIS certification continued to be available for purchase on the platform as of December 2025.
- Certain listings lacked adequate disclosure of seller or manufacturer name and address, pointing to deficiencies in Flipkart’s compliance and onboarding processes.