The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty on Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. for allowing ordinary sweets to be listed and sold on its platform as “Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad” without authorisation from the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.
The order, passed on August 4, 2026, has put a fresh spotlight on the responsibility of large e-commerce marketplaces for claims made by third-party sellers on their platforms. The matter originally dates back to January 2024, when the CCPA issued a show-cause notice to Amazon following a complaint by the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT).
How the case started
The controversy emerged just days before the January 22, 2024 consecration ceremony of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
On January 19, 2024, the CCPA took action after receiving a representation from CAIT alleging that sweets were being sold on Amazon under the name “Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad.”
The regulator identified four listings, including:
Raghupati Ghee Ladoo
Khoya Khobi Ladoo
Ghee Boondi Ladoo
Desi Cow Milk Peda
The products were listed as 250-gram packs and were marketed using descriptions and religious imagery that suggested a connection with the Ram Mandir and its prasad.
According to the CCPA's findings, however, the products had not been authorised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust as Ram Mandir prasad.
Amazon removed the listings after receiving the CCPA's notice.
Why did CCPA consider the listings misleading?
The regulator said the expression “Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad” carries a specific meaning for devotees.
It is not simply a description of a sweet. Consumers could reasonably understand the phrase to mean food that had been offered at the Ram temple and had acquired the religious sanctity associated with prasad.
The CCPA therefore concluded that using the Ram Mandir's name to market ordinary commercially manufactured sweets, without authorisation from the temple trust, could mislead consumers and exploit religious sentiments.
The authority also noted that Amazon's enormous reach could give such listings an impression of legitimacy, particularly to consumers who might purchase prasad online because they could not travel to Ayodhya themselves.
Amazon's safe-harbour argument rejected
One of the most significant aspects of the case is that the CCPA rejected Amazon's intermediary or safe-harbour defence.
Amazon argued that it was essentially a marketplace intermediary and that the third-party seller was responsible for the product's description, pricing and listing.
The company also invoked the safe-harbour protection available to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.
The CCPA did not accept this argument.
The authority held that the Information Technology Act and consumer-protection rules operate in different legal spheres. Amazon's obligations under consumer-protection and e-commerce regulations could not simply disappear because the products were supplied and described by third-party sellers.
The regulator concluded that by hosting, displaying and facilitating the sale of the listings, Amazon was involved in the publication of the misleading advertisements.
Four listings generated ₹39,802 in revenue for Amazon
The financial figures in the order also provide an important distinction.
The four disputed listings generated ₹25,26,309 in gross merchandise sales, according to the CCPA's order.
However, Amazon told the regulator that the actual sales attributable to the four disputed listings were ₹39,802.29, from which Amazon received ₹15,165.90 as service fees.
Amazon clarified that the larger ₹25.26 lakh figure represented gross merchandise sales associated with the seller's broader listings rather than Amazon's own revenue from the four products.
CCPA also found problems with seller information
The case wasn't limited to the misleading “prasad” claim.
The CCPA's investigation also examined how seller information was presented on Amazon's platform.
According to the regulator, seller-related information was not adequately displayed in the manner required under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
The authority also found that Amazon's grievance-redressal mechanism required users to log in, which it considered inconsistent with the requirement for information and grievance mechanisms to be easily accessible.
Amazon directed to verify religious-product claims
Beyond the ₹1 lakh penalty, the CCPA issued broader directions to Amazon.
The company has been directed to ensure that products claiming to be “prasad”, “prasadam”, “mahaprasad”, “bhog” or similar religious offerings associated with specified religious institutions are not listed, advertised or offered for sale without verifiable documentary proof of authorisation from the concerned institution.
The framework submitted by Amazon covers 10 major religious institutions and shrines, including:
Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine
Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple
Shri Jagannath Temple
Shri Kedarnath Temple
Shri Badrinath Temple
Shri Somnath Temple
Shri Dwarkadhish Temple
Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple
Amazon has also been directed to strengthen its keyword-based monitoring and takedown mechanisms for such listings.
The timeline: From January 2024 complaint to August 2026 penalty
The case has taken more than two years to reach its final order.
January 19, 2024: CCPA issued a show-cause notice to Amazon over the “Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad” listings.
January 2024: Amazon removed the disputed listings after receiving the notice and disclosed information about the third-party seller.
2024–2026: The regulatory proceedings and investigation continued.
August 4, 2026: CCPA passed its final order imposing a ₹1 lakh penalty on Amazon Seller Services.
August 19–20, 2026: The order and penalty were widely reported publicly.
What this means for India's e-commerce and FMCG industry
The case could have implications beyond religious offerings.
For marketplaces, the bigger question is no longer simply who manufactured a product. It is increasingly about how much responsibility a platform has when a third-party seller makes a potentially misleading claim.
The CCPA's position sends a clear signal: marketplaces cannot necessarily rely on their intermediary status as a complete shield against consumer-protection obligations.
For food and FMCG sellers, the message is equally important. Claims involving authenticity, religious association, geographical origin, institutional endorsement and special status could face greater scrutiny when products are sold through large online platforms.
And for consumers, the case reinforces a basic but important point: a product being available on a major e-commerce marketplace does not automatically mean every claim made in its listing has been independently verified.
The ₹1 lakh penalty may be relatively small compared with the scale of Amazon's business. But the regulatory precedent could prove far more consequential: platforms may increasingly be expected to verify certain high-risk claims before allowing sellers to put them in front of millions of consumers.