The central consumer protection authority (CCPA) has held JioMart, operated by Reliance Retail Ltd, accountable for misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices over the sale of walkie-talkies without mandatory regulatory disclosures. The order, issued on 21 November 2025, follows a detailed investigation that found the platform had listed wireless communication devices without specifying whether they required a licence, their operating frequency, or their compliance status under Indian laws governing radio equipment.
In the order, the bench of Nidhi Khare (chief commissioner) and Anupam Mishra (commissioner) says, "It may be noted that JioMart operates as an e-commerce platform engaged in listing and facilitating sale of various consumer goods across India through online mode. The platform is accessible nationwide through its website, thereby enabling consumers from different states and union territories (UTs) to access and purchase the listed products. Accordingly, it is evident that the activities of JioMart have a substantial consumer reach and market presence, and any misleading or non-compliant listing on such a platform has the potential to affect a large number of consumers. Therefore, the conduct of JioMart attracts the applicability of Section 21(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, necessitating imposition of a penalty for dissemination of misleading and non-compliant advertisements on a platform with significant consumer outreach."
CCPA initiated the case after taking note of product listings on JioMart’s official website that failed to disclose crucial information about walkie-talkies which are regulated under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The authority noted that low-power personal mobile radios operating between 446.0MHz–446.2MHz are exempt from licensing, but manufacturers must obtain equipment type approval (ETA) from the wireless planning and coordination wing (WPCW).
Despite these requirements, listings on JioMart did not specify frequency details or whether the devices were exempt or required licensing. The omission, the authority held, had the potential to mislead consumers into assuming unrestricted use.
During its preliminary assessment, CCPA observed that the platform’s product pages lacked mandatory disclosures relating to licensing status, frequency range, or certifications such as ETA, wireless planning & coordination (WPC) and bureau of Indian standards (BIS). This, it says, compromised consumers’ right to be informed about the standard, quality and authenticity of products under Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It also noted that E-commerce rules require platforms to prominently display essential product information and ensure sellers furnish complete and accurate details. The authority concluded that JioMart and the sellers had failed to meet these standards.
A notice issued to JioMart on 7 May 2025 sought information, including seller details, URLs, frequency specifications, certification records and the number of units sold. In its reply, JioMart stated that compliance responsibility lay with sellers and manufacturers, and that the platform, being an intermediary, was not liable for violations under the Exemption Rules. It says that all identified listings had been removed after receipt of the notice and further measures were taken to prevent similar listings. The platform also submitted seller details, URLs and the number of units sold, stating that it fulfilled due diligence obligations under the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules 2020 and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.
However, CCPA later found that JioMart did not furnish essential details such as device frequencies, licensing information, or proof of ETA and WPC certification. The authority referred the case for detailed investigation on 28 May 2025. The director general (DG)’s report, submitted on 19 August 2025, found multiple violations.
According to the report, JioMart listed walkie-talkies without mandatory disclosures; falsely claimed to have delisted non-compliant products while uncertified devices remained accessible. The platform also failed to cooperate with the investigation and carried products operating beyond licence-exempt frequency limits without proof of compliance. The DG reported deficiencies in governance, including inadequate verification of sellers and product compliance, and concluded that JioMart violated Sections 2(9), 2(11), 2(28) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act.
JioMart representatives, appearing for a hearing on 23 September 2025, argued that the platform was a marketplace intermediary and sellers were responsible for compliance. They claimed all disputed listings had been removed after the first notice and any visible pages were merely cached search engine copies. They contended that seller agreements had since been strengthened and no wireless products are permitted on the platform.
In a subsequent written submission on 26 September 2025, JioMart reiterated that it had acted promptly, fully complied with applicable rules and permanently restricted walkie-talkie listings. It also cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Shreya Singhal case to argue that intermediaries are obliged to remove content only upon receiving official notice, which it says it followed. JioMart expressed regret for missing emails from the investigation wing due to an internal lapse but denied any liability.
The authority, however, reviewed all records and submissions and concluded that JioMart had indeed listed walkie-talkies without mandatory disclosures relating to licensing, frequency compliance and certification status. It noted that 58 units were purchased by consumers without being informed of these crucial details. It further pointed out that the department of telecommunications (DoT) has made it clear that online intermediaries must ensure compliance with statutory requirements for wireless equipment, particularly relating to dealer possession licences, equipment type approval and frequency authorisation.
After examining the DG’s findings, submissions from JioMart and relevant legal provisions, CCPA held that the omissions amounted to violations of consumer rights and misleading advertisements as defined under Section 2(28), including deliberate concealment of important information and imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh. The authority also noted that intermediaries are responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements are not bypassed on their platforms.
Investors May Soon Find It Easier To Replace Lost Physical Shares: SEBI
Moneylife Digital Team
26 November 2025
Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has proposed significant changes to make it easier for investors to obtain duplicate securities certificates when original ones are lost, damaged or misplaced. The...
SEBI Slaps ₹10 Lakh Penalty on 2 for Trading in Illiquid Stock Options
Moneylife Digital Team
25 November 2025
Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has imposed penalties of ₹10 lakh on two entities for engaging in non-genuine trading activities within the illiquid stock options segment of the Bombay Stock Exchange...
RBI Imposes ₹5.50 Lakh Penalty on 3 Cooperative Banks
Moneylife Digital Team
25 November 2025
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed a total penalty of ₹5.50 lakh on three cooperative banks for non-compliance with its regulatory directions. The highest penalty has been imposed on Uttar Pradesh-based Fatehpur District...
SEBI Introduces Turnover-based Framework for Material Related-party Transactions
Moneylife Digital Team
25 November 2025
Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has introduced a new turnover-linked framework to determine what qualifies as a material related-party transaction (RPT), replacing the earlier fixed cap-based approach....
Just 1 Lakh penalty is very less & minuscule for this Violation