[Update] Bombay HC Rejects Meta’s Plea To Move Blink Digital’s ₹1,000 Cr Suit To US

Meta asked the Bombay High Court to return Blink Digital India’s ₹1,000 crore commercial suit for filing in the United States. It relied on contract terms requiring disputes to be handled exclusively in California under Californian law. The court rejected that request.

Justice Sandeep V Marne held that private contracts cannot override mandatory Indian laws. The court also said the dispute was broader than a simple contract breach. Both sides had raised allegations involving India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Meta’s position was further weakened because Facebook India Online Services, its Indian subsidiary and co-defendant, did not challenge the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction. The court said Meta could not raise that objection on the subsidiary’s behalf. The case therefore remains before the Bombay High Court.

Meta Business Manager is a free backend dashboard that lets businesses and agencies organise several parts of their Meta presence in one place. It can manage Facebook Pages, Instagram accounts, advertising accounts, pixels, and team permissions. This makes it important when one agency handles digital activity for multiple clients.

Blink Digital used the system as an operational layer for clients’ advertising infrastructure. Campaigns themselves were created and managed through Meta Ads Manager, but Business Manager controlled access to the connected assets and advertising features. Disabling the dashboard therefore affected the agency’s ability to work across client portfolios.

The dispute shows why access to such a management system matters commercially. Meta disabled four Blink Business Manager accounts and about 9,000 linked advertising accounts. Blink said the action stopped associated campaigns and removed its ability to create or manage advertising activity through the affected portfolio.

The shutdown affected four Meta Business Manager accounts belonging to Blink Digital India. Around 9,000 advertising accounts linked to those Business Manager accounts were also disabled. The figures show that the action reached far beyond four isolated dashboard profiles.

Business Manager connects agencies to the advertising infrastructure they manage for clients. When Meta disabled Blink’s four accounts, the agency also lost access to the linked advertising accounts. The article says campaigns associated with Blink stopped running, while advertising features became unavailable through the affected portfolio.

The disruption is central to Blink’s lawsuit. The agency is seeking restoration of its accounts, along with ₹1,000 crore in damages. The Bombay High Court’s decision concerned jurisdiction, not a final finding on whether Meta was legally responsible. The commercial dispute therefore continues while the claimed business impact remains part of Blink’s case.

Blink Digital India is asking Meta to restore four disabled Meta Business Manager accounts. It is also seeking about ₹1,000 crore in compensation. The agency filed the commercial suit after Meta disabled those accounts and around 9,000 linked advertising accounts in August.

The shutdown could affect clients because Business Manager serves as the agency’s operational layer. The article says campaigns associated with Blink stopped running after access was disabled. The agency also lost the ability to create or manage advertising activity through the affected portfolio, including access to advertising features.

That makes the dispute larger than the loss of a login. Blink works with brands on digital campaigns and other technology-led marketing initiatives. Its clients include KFC, ITC, Star Sports, Vh1, Condé Nast, Moët Hennessy, Viber, and Puma. The court has rejected Meta’s jurisdiction challenge, but the damages claim and restoration request remain to be decided.

A contractual choice-of-court clause identifies the forum where parties agree to resolve disputes. Meta relied on such a term, arguing that commercial disputes had to be heard exclusively in California under Californian law. It therefore asked the Bombay High Court to return Blink’s suit for filing before a US court.

The court rejected that approach because private contracts cannot override mandatory Indian laws. It also viewed the dispute as broader than an ordinary contractual breach. Both parties had raised allegations concerning violations of India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

That reasoning kept the case within the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction at this stage. It does not decide whether Blink will win its damages claim or whether Meta violated the law. It means the agreed California forum was not enough to remove an Indian court from a dispute involving mandatory Indian legal requirements.

Facebook India Online Services was named as a co-defendant alongside Meta in Blink Digital’s suit. Unlike Meta, the Indian subsidiary did not challenge the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction. That left the court facing no jurisdiction objection from one of the parties directly included in the case.

Meta argued that the suit should move to a US court because its contract required disputes to be resolved in California. But the court said Meta could not raise a jurisdiction objection on behalf of its subsidiary. Each defendant’s position mattered, and the subsidiary had chosen not to make that challenge.

This point reinforced the court’s decision to keep hearing the matter. It was not the only reason: Justice Sandeep V Marne also held that private contracts cannot override mandatory Indian laws. The court further noted alleged issues under India’s Information Technology Rules, making the dispute broader than a purely contractual claim.

India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, mattered because both parties raised allegations that the rules had been violated. Their presence made the dispute more than a disagreement about Meta’s contract terms or a California forum clause.

The article does not set out the specific provisions or explain exactly which account-management actions allegedly breached them. It does establish that the allegations concerned a platform dispute involving disabled Business Manager and advertising accounts. The court treated those alleged Indian-law issues as relevant when deciding whether it could hear the case.

This allowed the Bombay High Court to scrutinize the dispute under mandatory Indian legal requirements rather than simply enforcing Meta’s chosen forum. The ruling does not make a final finding that Meta violated the rules. It confirms that such allegations can keep an India-related platform-access dispute before an Indian court.