Your rights when an online seller will not help

An online purchase that goes wrong raises a question the older consumer law never had to answer cleanly — when the consumer dealt with a platform but bought from a seller listed on it, who answers for the defective good, the platform or the seller? The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 set the frame with Section 94, which empowers the Central Government to prescribe measures to prevent unfair trade practices in e-commerce. The detail lives in the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, which split e-commerce entities into two kinds — the marketplace entity that only hosts other sellers, and the inventory entity that owns and sells its own stock — and fix different duties on each. The Rules require a grievance officer, time-bound redressal, country-of-origin disclosure and a bar on refusing refunds for defective goods; the marketplace entity's intermediary protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is made conditional on compliance. This guide sets out the two-entity scheme, the duties each owes, where the platform can and cannot shelter behind the seller, and the forum that hears the complaint.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was drafted for a world of physical shops, identifiable sellers and over-the-counter transactions. It could be read to cover online sales, but it carried no apparatus for the structural feature that makes e-commerce different — the platform that stands between the consumer and the seller, hosting the listing, taking the payment, arranging the delivery, but disclaiming that it is the seller of anything. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 closed that gap. Its definition of "consumer" was expressed to include a person who buys goods or avails services through any mode, including offline or online transactions through electronic means, and Section 94 gave the Central Government power to prescribe measures to prevent unfair trade practices in e-commerce and direct selling. The substantive rules followed in the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. The combination matters to a consumer whose online order has gone wrong because it does two things the 1986 Act could not: it fixes named, time-bound duties on the platform itself, and it decides — through a two-entity classification — when the platform answers as a seller and when it can point to the seller it merely hosted.

The enabling section — Section 94 and the consumer definition

Section 94 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is short and is an enabling provision: for the purposes of preventing unfair trade practices in e-commerce and direct selling, and to protect the interest and rights of consumers, the Central Government may take such measures in the manner as may be prescribed. It does not itself create duties; it authorises the rule-making power under which the substantive duties were later prescribed. The rule-making head in the Act expressly carries this through — the measures to be taken by the Central Government to prevent unfair trade practices in e-commerce and direct selling under Section 94 are among the matters on which rules may be made.

Section 94 has to be read with the Act's definitions. The 2019 Act's definition of "consumer" was deliberately drawn to include the person transacting online through electronic means, so that the consumer who buys on a platform is a "consumer" with the full set of rights the Act confers — including the right to file a complaint before a consumer commission. The Act's definition of "unfair trade practice" was also widened, and the e-commerce conduct the Rules target — false reviews, manipulated rankings, non-disclosure of seller details, refusal of legitimate refunds — is brought within the unfair-trade-practice frame the commissions already adjudicate. Section 94 is therefore the bridge: it connects the consumer's existing adjudicatory rights under the Act to a body of conduct rules written specifically for the online marketplace.

The two-entity scheme — marketplace and inventory

The central move of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 is the classification of e-commerce entities into two kinds, because the duties — and the liability — follow the kind. An "e-commerce entity" is any person who owns, operates or manages a digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce; the definition expressly excludes a seller who merely offers his goods or services for sale on a marketplace entity. Within e-commerce entities, the Rules draw the line that decides the rest of the analysis.

A "marketplace e-commerce entity" is one that provides an information-technology platform on a digital or electronic network to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers. It does not own the stock; it hosts third-party sellers and connects them to consumers. An "inventory e-commerce entity" is one that owns the inventory of goods or services and sells them directly to consumers; it includes single-brand retailers and multi-channel single-brand retailers. The distinction is the consumer's first diagnostic question when an order goes wrong: on a marketplace, the consumer bought from a listed seller and the platform facilitated; on an inventory model, the consumer bought from the platform itself, because the platform is the seller. The Rules apply to all models of e-commerce, to retail of every kind, and — by an express provision — to an e-commerce entity not established in India that systematically offers goods or services to consumers in India.

The duties every e-commerce entity owes — Rule 4

Rule 4 of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 sets the baseline that binds every e-commerce entity, marketplace and inventory alike. An entity that is an incorporated company, a foreign company or an Indian-controlled office abroad must appoint a nodal officer resident in India to ensure compliance with the Act and the Rules. Every entity must display, prominently and accessibly, its legal name, the principal geographic address of its headquarters and branches, the details of its website, and the contact details of customer care and of its grievance officer.

The operative consumer-protection duties in Rule 4 are concrete. No e-commerce entity shall adopt any unfair trade practice, on its platform or otherwise. Every entity must establish an adequate grievance-redressal mechanism and appoint a grievance officer, displaying that officer's name, contact details and designation on the platform. The grievance officer must acknowledge a consumer complaint within forty-eight hours and redress it within one month of receipt — a hard timeline the consumer can hold the entity to. An entity offering imported goods must give the name and details of the importer. No entity may impose cancellation charges on a consumer who cancels after confirming a purchase unless the entity itself bears similar charges when it cancels unilaterally. Consent for a purchase must be recorded only through an explicit, affirmative action — pre-ticked checkboxes are barred. Accepted refunds must be paid within a reasonable period as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India or applicable law. And no entity may manipulate prices to gain unreasonable profit or discriminate between consumers of the same class. These are not aspirational standards; a breach of any of them is conduct the consumer can take to a commission as an unfair trade practice or a deficiency.

The marketplace entity — Rule 5 and the intermediary question

Rule 5 governs the marketplace entity, and it is here that the platform-versus-seller question is answered. A marketplace e-commerce entity that seeks to avail the exemption from liability under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 must comply with sub-sections (2) and (3) of that section, including the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011. This is the pivotal sentence. Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 shields an "intermediary" from liability for third-party content and transactions, and a marketplace platform's defence to a defective-product complaint is that it is only an intermediary — it did not sell the product, the listed seller did. Rule 5(1) does not abolish that defence, but it makes it conditional: the platform keeps the intermediary shelter only if it has met the Section 79 conditions and the intermediary-guideline obligations. A marketplace entity that has not done so cannot claim to be a mere intermediary.

Rule 5 then loads the marketplace entity with disclosure duties that exist precisely so the consumer is not left chasing an anonymous seller. The entity must display, prominently and accessibly, the details of the sellers on its platform — business name, whether registered or not, geographic address, customer-care number, ratings or aggregated feedback, and any other information the consumer needs to make an informed decision before purchase. It must describe, in plain language, the main parameters that determine the ranking of goods and sellers on the platform, and any differentiated treatment it gives between sellers of the same category. It must keep a record allowing identification of sellers who have repeatedly offered goods removed under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or the IT Act, 2000. The design of Rule 5 is that the marketplace entity may shelter behind the seller only if it has made the seller fully visible and reachable to the consumer — the shelter and the disclosure are two sides of one bargain.

The seller on a marketplace — Rule 6

Rule 6 fixes the duties of the seller who lists on a marketplace, and it is the provision the consumer relies on when the listed seller is the one who has gone silent. No seller on a marketplace entity shall adopt any unfair trade practice, on the platform or otherwise. No seller shall falsely represent itself as a consumer and post reviews, or misrepresent the quality or features of goods or services. Decisively for the consumer with a defective delivery, no seller offering goods through a marketplace shall refuse to take back goods, withdraw or discontinue services, or refuse to refund consideration if paid, where the goods or services are defective, deficient or spurious, or are not of the characteristics or features as advertised or agreed, or are delivered late from the stated schedule — the only carve-out being late delivery caused by force majeure.

Rule 6 also requires the seller to have a prior written contract with the marketplace entity, to appoint its own grievance officer working to the same forty-eight-hour and one-month timelines, to keep advertisements consistent with the actual characteristics of the goods, and to give the entity its legal name, address, website, contact details and, where applicable, GSTIN and PAN. Critically, the seller must provide for display on the platform all contractual information required by law, the total price in a single figure with the break-up of every compulsory and voluntary charge, all mandatory notices and the expiry date where applicable, and — among the relevant details for an informed pre-purchase decision — the country of origin of the goods. Country-of-origin disclosure, mandated through Rule 6, is one of the Rules' more visible interventions: the consumer is entitled to know where the product was made before he buys it.

The inventory entity — Rule 7

Rule 7 governs the inventory e-commerce entity — the platform that is itself the seller. Because the inventory entity owns the stock and sells it directly, the duties combine the platform-disclosure obligations with the seller obligations. The entity must display accurate information on return, refund, exchange, warranty and guarantee, delivery and shipment, the cost of return shipping, modes of payment and the grievance-redressal mechanism; all mandatory notices; payment-method information including security and cancellation procedures; all contractual information; and the total price in a single figure with the full break-up of charges. It must give a ticket number for every complaint so the consumer can track its status.

The inventory entity may not falsely post reviews or misrepresent quality, must keep its advertising consistent with the goods' actual characteristics, and — on the same terms as the marketplace seller under Rule 6 — may not refuse to take back goods or refuse a refund where the goods are defective, deficient, spurious, or not as advertised or agreed, or are delivered late, save for force majeure. And an inventory entity that explicitly or implicitly vouches for the authenticity of the goods it sells, or guarantees that they are authentic, shall bear appropriate liability in any action related to that authenticity. Because the inventory entity is the seller, the consumer's complaint against it is direct — there is no intermediary question, no listed third-party seller to point to. The platform answers as the seller it is.

The forum and the route — and what the consumer should establish first

The Rules create duties; the enforcement runs through the Act. A breach of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 is treated as a contravention to which the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 apply — so the consumer's grievance over an online purchase is a consumer complaint under the Act, filed before the District, State or National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission according to the value of the goods and the compensation claimed, the pecuniary tiers being those set by the Act and the rules under Section 34 and the connected provisions. The conduct the Rules prohibit — refusing a legitimate refund, hiding seller details, posting fake reviews, manipulating rankings, non-disclosure of country of origin — feeds into the unfair-trade-practice and deficiency-of-service heads the commissions already adjudicate, and the Central Consumer Protection Authority under Section 35 and the connected provisions can act against e-commerce unfair trade practices as a class.

The consumer's first analytical step, before filing, is to fix which kind of entity he dealt with. On an inventory model the platform is the seller and the complaint lies against it directly. On a marketplace model the consumer has, in principle, two respondents — the listed seller, bound by Rule 6 not to refuse the refund, and the marketplace entity, bound by Rule 4 and Rule 5 and able to claim the Section 79 intermediary shelter only if it complied. Where the marketplace entity failed its own disclosure or grievance duties, or where it cannot show Section 79 compliance, the consumer is not confined to the listed seller. Where the entity did comply and merely hosted a defaulting seller, the seller is the primary respondent — but the entity's disclosure duties are precisely what make the seller reachable. The consumer who records the listing, the order confirmation, the price break-up, the grievance-officer correspondence and the entity's classification has, in those documents, both the cause of action and the answer to the platform's intermediary defence.

The position consolidated

An online purchase that goes wrong is a consumer dispute, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 has built the apparatus the 1986 Act lacked. Section 94 of the 2019 Act is the enabling power; the consumer who transacts online is a "consumer" with the full adjudicatory rights the Act confers. The Rules classify e-commerce entities into the marketplace entity that hosts third-party sellers and the inventory entity that owns and sells its own stock — and the duties, and the liability, follow the classification. Rule 4 binds every entity to a grievance officer, forty-eight-hour acknowledgement and one-month redressal, honest pricing and explicit consent. Rule 5 makes the marketplace entity's intermediary shelter under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 conditional on compliance, and loads it with seller-disclosure duties. Rule 6 bars the listed seller from refusing a refund for defective or misdescribed goods and mandates country-of-origin disclosure. Rule 7 holds the inventory entity to the combined platform-and-seller duties and to authenticity liability for what it vouches for. Enforcement runs through the consumer commissions and the Central Consumer Protection Authority. The consumer who first identifies whether he bought from a marketplace seller or from an inventory platform, and then reads the duty that entity owed him, is reading the scheme as it was built — the classification is not a technicality, it is the question that decides who answers.

This guide is general information about Indian law for adult readers and is not legal advice. The classification of e-commerce entities, the duties of marketplace and inventory entities and of sellers, the grievance-redressal obligations, the intermediary protection and the enforcement route described here are governed by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the rules made under it, and the case law referred to above, all of which may have changed since this guide was last reviewed. For a specific dispute arising out of an online purchase, consult a lawyer and the consumer commission with jurisdiction over the dispute.