Bombay High Court Rejects Meta’s California Jurisdiction Plea in Blink Digital’s Rs 1,000 Crore Suit

The decision and its immediate effect

The Bombay High Court has dismissed Meta Platforms Inc.'s application seeking return of a commercial plaint to be presented before a court in California. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that Meta had not shown that the High Court entirely lacked territorial jurisdiction over the dispute brought by Indian advertising agency Blink Digital (India) Private Limited. The decision was pronounced on 27 October 2026 and reported the following morning.

The ruling addresses where the lawsuit can proceed at this stage, not whether the advertising accounts were lawfully disabled or whether Blink Digital is entitled to damages. The Court expressly left open the possibility that jurisdiction could be examined independently during the trial.

How the commercial dispute arose

Blink Digital provides digital advertising, media planning and related services to clients. According to its plaint, four business-manager accounts and approximately 9,000 associated advertising accounts and other business assets were disabled on 4 August 2026. The agency brought a commercial suit against Facebook India Online Services Private Limited and Meta Platforms Inc., seeking restoration of access and other declaratory and injunctive relief.

The plaintiff also claimed Rs 1,000 crore in damages. That amount is a claim in the suit, not an award made by the High Court. The underlying dispute concerns access to advertising infrastructure, the parties' platform arrangements and competing allegations about compliance with applicable rules.

Meta’s request for a California forum

Meta, the second defendant, moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs return of a plaint for presentation before the proper court. It relied on its Terms of Service and Commercial Terms, arguing that commercial disputes had been assigned to specified California courts and were governed by California law.

Meta maintained that the relevant agreements formed an interconnected contractual framework and that the Indian proceedings should not continue in Bombay. Blink Digital opposed the application, arguing that its claims against the Indian entity and Meta were intertwined and that the dispute extended beyond contractual promises to obligations arising under Indian law. These were competing submissions, not findings on the underlying account suspension.

Why the Indian regulatory issues mattered

The Court examined the pleadings and documents and found that the dispute raised allegations under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Both sides had referred to intermediary obligations in explaining their positions on the account restrictions. The judge therefore declined to treat the litigation as a purely private contract dispute.

In the Court's analysis, a contractual choice of foreign forum and governing law cannot displace mandatory Indian statutory obligations. It reasoned that the California-law clauses, which excluded conflict-of-law principles, could not adequately resolve the pleaded questions concerning compliance with India's intermediary framework. That conclusion was reached for the purpose of the present jurisdiction application; it was not a final ruling that either defendant had breached the IT Rules.

Facebook India’s position and the single plaint

A separate obstacle to Meta's application was that Facebook India, the first defendant, had not itself challenged the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. The Court noted that this Indian company had an office within the relevant territorial jurisdiction and that the plaintiff's pleaded causes of action against the two defendants were closely connected.

The judge also considered the rule against partially returning a plaint. In the circumstances, it would not be permissible to keep one portion of the same intertwined suit in Bombay while returning another portion for filing in California. The Court drew on the reasoning in Nilesh Girkar v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited concerning Order VII Rule 10 and the indivisibility of a plaint for this purpose.

How the Court approached earlier precedent

The order discussed the Supreme Court's decision in Modi Entertainment Network v. WSG PTE Ltd., which recognises that parties engaged in international commerce may choose a foreign court to resolve contractual disputes. The High Court did not announce that every foreign forum-selection clause is invalid. Instead, it distinguished the present dispute because of its statutory dimension and the joined claims involving the Indian defendant.

It also considered the decision in Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd. on contractual forum clauses, but held that the facts and legal setting of the present litigation were different. The significance lies in the interaction between private contractual arrangements, territorial jurisdiction and mandatory domestic regulation.

Operative directions and what happens next

The High Court dismissed Interim Application No. 6550 of 2026 in Commercial Suit (L) No. 31434 of 2026. Costs of that application were made costs in the suit. The Court directed that Blink Digital's separate application seeking a temporary injunction be listed on 2 November 2026 at 4:00 PM.

Accordingly, the immediate outcome is that Meta's request to return the plaint has failed at this stage. The merits of the requested account restoration, the allegations concerning intermediary compliance and the Rs 1,000 crore damages claim remain to be adjudicated.

Key legal points

• Procedure: Order VII Rule 10 CPC concerns return of a plaint, not adjudication of the underlying claim.
• Regulation: Pleaded IT Act and 2021 Intermediary Rules questions were material to the jurisdiction analysis.
• Scope: The jurisdiction finding is confined to this interim application and can be revisited at trial.

Case details

Case: Meta Platforms Inc. v. Blink Digital (India) Private Limited & Another
Court: Bombay High Court, Commercial Division
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Order: 27 October 2026
Proceeding: Interim Application No. 6550 of 2026 in Commercial Suit (L) No. 31434 of 2026.