&w=3840&q=100)
CCPA issues notices over illegal walkie-talkie sales on e-commerce sites
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on Friday issued 13 notices to several digital marketplaces for listing and selling walkie-talkies without proper frequency disclosure, licensing information, or Equipment Type Approval (ETA), which it said violated the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The move comes amid rising tensions at the India–Pakistan border. 'Walkie-talkies are being sold on e-commerce platforms without mandatory and clear disclosures regarding the requirement of a wireless operating licence or compliance with applicable laws. The product listings for walkie-talkies do not specify whether the device requires a licence from the concerned authority for use,' the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution said in a statement on Friday evening.
The e-commerce platforms include Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, OLX, Facebook, and Indiamart, among others, it added.
'The omission of details such as frequency range, licensing obligations under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, and the Use of Low Power, Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018, as well as the potential legal consequences of unauthorised use, misleads consumers into believing that the devices are freely operable by the general public,' the ministry stated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fibre2Fashion
4 hours ago
- Fibre2Fashion
Indian govt urges e-commerce platforms to eliminate dark patterns
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has issued an advisory to all e-commerce platforms, urging them to take immediate steps to ensure their platforms do not engage in deceptive or unfair trade practices commonly referred to as dark patterns. The CCPA has advised e-commerce platforms to audit and eliminate dark patterns within three months, promoting fair practices and consumer trust. Violators face notices under the 2023 guidelines. A Joint Working Group will monitor compliance and raise consumer awareness. Thirteen types of dark patterns have been officially defined by the government. All platforms have been advised to conduct self-audits within three months from the date of the advisory to identify such practices and implement corrective measures. Based on the self-audit findings, platforms are also encouraged to provide self-declarations affirming that they do not engage in any dark patterns. These declarations are intended to promote a fair digital ecosystem and strengthen consumer trust in e-commerce platforms, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution said in a press release. The CCPA has also issued notices to certain platforms found to be in violation of the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023. The authority continues to closely monitor compliance with these guidelines and has observed several instances of dark patterns across e-commerce sites. Platforms are, therefore, advised to avoid using manipulative design interfaces that mislead consumers or influence their decision-making unfairly. To further this initiative, the Department of Consumer Affairs, government of India, has constituted a Joint Working Group (JWG) comprising representatives from relevant ministries, regulators, voluntary consumer organisations, and national law universities. The JWG has been tasked with identifying violations of dark patterns on e-commerce platforms and regularly sharing findings with the Department of Consumer Affairs. It will also recommend suitable awareness programmes to educate consumers about such practices. As part of its broader strategy to enhance consumer protection in the digital era, the government of India had issued the guidelines in 2023, identifying and defining 13 types of dark patterns: false urgency, basket sneaking, confirm shaming, forced action, subscription trap, interface interference, bait and switch, drip pricing, disguised advertisements, nagging, trick wording, SaaS billing, and rogue malwares. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (HU)
Indian Express
7 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘If strictly veg, why order from non-veg restaurant?': Consumer forum dismisses Dadar couple's complaint over chicken momos
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai has dismissed a complaint seeking compensation for the delivery of chicken momos to a couple who allegedly ordered the vegetarian version of the snack, observing that if they were 'strictly vegetarian', they need not have ordered food from a restaurant that also delivers non-vegetarian meals. The Commission added that the complainants failed to provide proof that they had ordered vegetarian momos and pointed out that the offer mentioned both 'veg-non-veg'. 'If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and the non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why they opted for order from a restaurant which was delivering both non-veg and vegetarian food instead of ordering the food from a restaurant which was exclusively vegetarian and served only and only vegetarian food,' the bench comprising president Pradeep Kadu and member Gauri Kapse said in the order on May 13. The couple from Dadar had approached the Commission in the district in 2020, stating that while they had ordered a 'Steam Darjeeling Momo Combo' from the outlet Wow Momos, and had specified their preference for vegetarian food, they were served chicken momos. They had paid Rs 120 for the combo, which included an aerated beverage, and sought compensation for the 'mental trauma' and 'emotional distress', as their religious feelings were hurt, alleging negligence by the eatery. Wow Momos denied the allegations and said the couple had ordered a non-vegetarian combo, as is evident from their order invoice. They were also given a refund, which they had accepted, and hence they do not fall under the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, it was submitted on behalf of the firm. The Commission said no evidence was produced to show that the couple had ordered vegetarian momos, and the photographs they submitted as evidence did not indicate what kind of momos were delivered. 'If non-veg order had been delivered to the complainants instead of veg order, then it ought to have contained only non-veg pieces. A prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it… The complainants have produced a photo of the offer board which did not clearly indicate whether the Steam Darjeeling Momos were veg or non-veg,' the bench said. 'However, the board did mention 'veg-non-veg', at the bottom suggesting that the restaurant did provide some indication of the food type,' the commission stated, adding that the complainants should have been aware of the possibility that non-veg options were available. The complainants also said that they were performing a puja and other religious ceremonies at the time, but the Commission stated that no proof was given to substantiate this claim, nor was the name of any pujari disclosed.
Time of India
19 hours ago
- Time of India
If strictly veg, why order from eatery that also serves non-veg: Consumer panel
MUMBAI: Questioning why they chose to order from a restaurant that also offered non-vegetarian options instead of an exclusively vegetarian establishment if they were strictly vegetarian and believed consuming meat would hurt their religious sentiments, a consumer commission has dismissed a complaint filed by two Dadar residents who sought Rs 6 lakh in compensation from a fast food chain that served them chicken momos in Dec 2020. "[That] a prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it seems reasonable," the commission said. The complainants, Gargi Joshi and Jitesh Mundhwa, had claimed that they had specifically asked for vegetarian options twice when placing an order for a momo and soft drink combination meal for Rs 120 at Wow Momos Foods Private Ltd's Sion outlet, but the commission said the complainants failed to substantiate this claim, noting that the invoice indicated a non-vegetarian order. It said the photos of the dish provided by the complainants did not clearly show whether it was non-vegetarian. On the complainants' claim that a display board near the eatery did not explicitly state that meat could be part of the combo meal, the commission comprising president Pradeep G Kadu and member Gauri M Kapse pointed out that it did mention "veg or non-veg" at the bottom. It also found no evidence for the claim that Joshi and Mundhwa's plan to perform puja or religious ceremonies was thwarted by the consumption of meat. "...they have [not] disclosed the names of any pujari or pandit who allegedly performed the puja... They have failed to disclose even the nature, name, date and place of the puja or religious ceremonies," it said. The Dadar residents had said after being served the wrong food, they contacted the company's head office in Kolkata and spoke to the director, who connected them to the Mumbai management. An employee representing the Mumbai management apologised to them and offered to meet them to resolve the matter, but no settlement was reached during a meeting, they said. In their complaint filed before the consumer panel in 2021, Joshi and Mundhwa provided copies of the bill, photographs of the display board and legal notices. The company said the complainants suppressed facts and that they themselves had ordered non-vegetarian items, as shown by the invoice. Arguing that they were not "consumers" under Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as they had received a refund, the company said it had clearly displayed vegetarian and non-vegetarian options and has a complaint book and email ID available, which the complainants did not use. It also denied employing the server who the complainants said had taken their order, adding that the person was physically abused by the complainants. The company said it had refunded the complainants' money because they had created "unnecessary nuisance". Despite their behaviour, it said, the complainants were also offered a gift voucher worth Rs 1,200 as a goodwill gesture, but they demanded Rs 3 lakh each.
