Can social media platforms suspend accounts based on copyright strikes? Delhi High Court to examine

The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether social media platforms can suspend or delete accounts based on copyright strikes.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani today framed this preliminary issue, which would be considered by the Court.

“Whether the system of suspension and subsequent deletion or takedown of the account on the social media platform based on the system of copyright strikes by social media platforms, amounts to a violation of the principles laid down in Shreya Singhal and MySpace judgments?”

Meta, Google and Telegram have been directed to specifically address this issue in their replies to the suit and interim injunction application. 

The case will be heard next on September 24.

The Court passed the order while dealing with a suit filed by a digital content creator Saurabh Maurya operating under the name “IITian Trader”.

Maurya moved the Court challenging the suspension of his Instagram account by Meta due to fake copyright strikes on his posts. He is also seeking compensation from persons running an extortion racket by abusing Meta’s copyright enforcement mechanism.

Senior advocate Diya Kapur and advocate Nakul Gandhi appeared for Maurya and raised the larger issue before.

It was argued that the mode and manner in which the copyright strikes are dealt with by the intermediaries as part of their standard operating procedure is based on an incorrect reading of the wordings of Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and of the Delhi High Court in My Space Inc. vs Super Cassettes Industries Limited.

Kapur argued that under the provisions of the Information Technology Act and Copyright Act, in order to avail the safe harbour position, an intermediary cannot be allowed to suspend an account merely on the basis of a copyright strike.

She stated that this discretion with intermediaries is in teeth of Shreya Singhal and MySpace judgments. 

“Here people are purporting to be copyright owners. They are sending notices, this entire mechanism is being abused. I am the owner of copyright. Somebody says I made this so remove it then the platform removes it. I have to keep writing to them then come to court for restoration. How does an intermediary take a call to remove the channel, videos? This is in the face of Shreya Singhal. Every influencer channel is going off.” 

Kapur suggested that the MySpace judgment needs to be clarified by the High Court to the effect that only a registered copyright owner or a person declared by the court as copyright owner can seek a copyright strike on grounds of infringement.

Meta counsel Varun Pathak informed the Court that 13 copyright strikes on Maurya’s account were found to be fake and, therefore, the strikes have been reversed and the account has been restored. 

Pathak also assured the Court that in the interim, Maurya’s content will not be taken down on grounds of copyright strikes subject to him submitting material to show that the strike is fake.

Senior advocate Diya Kapur with advocates Nakul Gandhi, Darshit Sidhabhatti, Siddhi Sahoo and Raghav Kumar appeared for Maurya.