Amazon claims safe-harbour in Karnataka book

Amazon argued before the Karnataka High Court that it qualifies for safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The case involves the alleged sale of pirated copies of the late journalist Ravi Belagere's novel on its platform, as first reported by LiveLaw.

Bhavana Belagere, daughter of the late journalist and claimant to the copyright of the book "Heli Hogu Kaarana", filed the initial FIR at Subramanyapura Police Station. Meesho and Flipkart are also named in that FIR but are not part of the current High Court proceedings.

Amazon's Legal Arguments

Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta, representing Amazon, stated the company operates as a marketplace connecting sellers and buyers. He argued it cannot be held liable for copyright infringement by third-party sellers on its platform, emphasizing that Amazon had fulfilled due-diligence obligations.

Chouta cited Sections 79(2) and 79(3) of the IT Act, arguing Amazon qualifies as an intermediary and is thus protected from civil or criminal liability. He also submitted that Amazon proactively removed the listings of all 12 sellers involved in the alleged infringement as soon as it was notified. The company's position is that intermediaries are not required to take down listings unless ordered under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.

Amazon distinguished its marketplace model from inventory-based e-commerce models. "Blinkit and others follow the inventory model. Flipkart, Amazon, we are just providing a platform," Chouta stated. The company further argued it could not be named as an accused in the absence of specific allegations that it failed to comply with due-diligence obligations. Amazon provided the Investigating Officer with details of the sellers allegedly involved.

Relevant Legal Precedents

Chouta cited the Delhi High Court's 2020 decision in Amazon v. Amway, where the court rejected the distinction between "active" and "passive" intermediaries for safe-harbour protection. This judgment followed the Delhi High Court's earlier 2018 ruling in Christian Louboutin v. Darveys.com.

That 2018 ruling had provided a non-exhaustive list of factors indicating active participation by a platform, which could cause it to lose safe harbour protection. The list included actions like providing quality assurance, creating product listings, promoting products, collecting payments, and arranging for product servicing.

The court had noted that if a significant number of these factors are present, a platform "could be said to cross the line from being an intermediary to an active participant". However, the 2020 Amazon v. Amway judgment overturned this approach, affirming that Section 79 does not distinguish between active and passive intermediaries for safe-harbour eligibility.

Contrasting Regulatory Actions

The arguments occur alongside recent regulatory actions against e-commerce platforms. On August 19, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) fined Flipkart Rs. 5 lakh for facilitating the sale of toys that did not comply with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) requirements.

In its order, the CCPA rejected Flipkart's claim to Section 79 safe harbour, citing the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. The order referred to tags such as 'Flipkart Assured', suggesting they could imply the platform had verified product safety and quality, potentially undermining a claim to neutral hosting.

The CCPA imposed the penalty under consumer protection laws and did not rule that Section 79 is generally unavailable to e-commerce marketplaces. Similarly, on August 4, 2026, the CCPA pointed out misleading listings for sweets marketed as "Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad" on Amazon, holding that the E-Commerce Rules impose platform-level duties that operate alongside the Section 79 framework.

Legal scholar Vasudev Devadasan has stated that E-Commerce Rules acknowledge online marketplaces like Amazon and Flipkart are eligible for safe harbour protections under the IT Act, with liability assessed on a case-by-case basis.