Information Technology Act, 2000
Important Cases on E-Commerce Intermediaries: Marketplace Case Law
The recurring e-commerce question is whether a marketplace is a neutral intermediary or an active trader, because the answer decides both safe harbour and liability for counterfeits and deficiencies. The Delhi High Court drew the active-passive line and the courts worked out where consumer law overrides the platform's terms. Topics 89 and 99 state the law; this note, as asked, is the dedicated case digest.
1. The Case Line
Figure 1: Hosting, marketplaces and consumer law
📖 Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, (2018) Delhi High Court Facts: A luxury e-commerce site selling goods bearing the plaintiff's marks claimed intermediary status; the court catalogued its functions, seller selection, promotion, quality assurance, warehousing, logistics and branding. Held: s.79 belongs to the passive conduit: a platform whose active participation facilitates infringement is not a mere intermediary and forfeits the safe harbour, with marketplace duties of seller disclosure and listing removal following. The active-passive test every e-commerce case now applies (Topic 89). |
- MySpace v. Super Cassettes (Del HC DB, 2016). Hosting and copyright: s.79 and the Copyright Act read harmoniously, knowledge means specific identified works notified with particulars, and there is no general duty to monitor uploads, the notice-and-takedown charter (Topics 67, 117)
- Kent RO v. Amit Kotak (Del HC, 2017). An intermediary is not obliged to screen or adjudicate every IP complaint across its platform; removal follows court orders and specific statutory notice, not a rights-holder's blanket demand.
- Amazon Seller Services / Flipkart v. Amway India (Del HC DB, 2020). A single judge had restrained the platforms over direct-selling guidelines; the Division Bench set the injunction aside pending trial, holding the guidelines' statutory force and the platforms' intermediary status required proper adjudication, not interim fiat, the direct-selling marketplace dispute.
- Amazon Seller Services v. Modicare and allied matters. The run of marketplace suits working out obligations toward brand owners, seller disclosure and the interface with the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, whose duties are the platform's own and lie outside s.79's third-party-information shield (Topic 89)
- Google India v. Visakha Industries (SC, 2019). On the pre-2009 s.79: the original harbour protected only against IT Act liability and gave no shield against IPC defamation, the amended wider harbour expressly distinguished (Topic 117)
2. Quick Revision
Figure 2: One line per case
⚠ Exam trap Anchor every marketplace answer in the active-passive line of Louboutin and the no-general-monitoring rule of MySpace, with Kent RO for no unbidden screening. Keep the two liability layers separate: s.79 shields the platform for third-party listings only while passive, but the Consumer Protection E-Commerce Rules impose the platform's own duties that s.79 never touches, the point the Amway and Modicare line works out. Cite Visakha for the pre-amendment harbour's narrowness across the 2008 divide. |
3. Frequently Asked Questions
When does an e-commerce marketplace lose safe harbour?
When it stops being passive. Christian Louboutin v. Nakul Bajaj holds that a platform which selects and promotes products, assures quality, warehouses, ships and brands the goods participates in the trade and cannot claim the Section 79 intermediary exemption for infringing goods; MySpace confines the harbour to specific-notice removal without general monitoring, and Kent RO rejects any duty to screen IP complaints unbidden. Separately, the platform's own duties under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 lie outside Section 79 altogether, as the Amway and Modicare line confirms.
4. Related Topics
- Topic 89: E-Commerce Law. The marketplace framework in full.
- Topic 117: Safe Harbour Cases. The intermediary doctrine these build on.