The Bombay High Court heard arguments on 2 November in the ongoing dispute between Meta and digital advertising agency Blink Digital India over the disabling of four Business Manager accounts and associated assets.

The hearing follows the court's 27 October dismissal of Meta's application challenging its jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as Manifest had earlier reported.

Meta told the court that it had raised compliance concerns with Blink earlier this year and alleged that the agency promoted ban-free advertising accounts, unlimited spending and account rental services that could help advertisers bypass platform restrictions. It also cited advertisements allegedly linked to scams, celebrity impersonation and investment schemes.

During the recent hearing, Meta also cited advertisements that it alleged used established brand identities to mislead consumers. One example involved an advertisement to promote loans ranging from INR 1 lakh to INR 5 lakh, claiming they were 100% secure and did not require a credit check. Meta referred to this as an instance of deceptive loan-related content prohibited under its advertising policies. Another example cited was an offer for a Samsung Neo QLED 8K television, which Meta presented as a misleading offer.

Blink disputed the allegations and challenged the process followed by Meta. Its counsel argued that the 4 August disablement notice did not identify specific advertisements, conduct or policy provisions allegedly violated.

The agency said further reasons were introduced in subsequent correspondence and argued that Meta should have followed the notice and grievance procedures under India's Information Technology rules.

A key point of contention was Hustle AI, a platform associated with Blink that Meta alleged offered rental advertising accounts. Blink said the product was developed with Meta's knowledge and technical support, and referred to a claimed Meta investment of approximately USD 390,900.

It argued that the product extended the agency's credit facilities to clients rather than enabling unauthorised account rentals. Meta disputed this interpretation.

Blink is seeking restoration of access to the four Business Manager accounts and continuation of its Managed Agency Partner status. Its counsel told the court that the accounts held around 9,000 advertising accounts and associated assets built over approximately 11 years.

Alternatively, it sought preservation of its proprietary and client advertising data.

During the hearing, the court explored whether Meta would consider restoring the accounts if Blink addressed its concerns. Meta's counsel sought instructions, while Blink indicated it was open to dialogue.

The hearing concluded with a request to file short written submissions, with a two-day timeline discussed.