Delhi High Court seeks response from Centre, Meta on PIL alleging misuse of Meta's copyright rules

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Union government, the Delhi government and Meta Platforms in a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging that Meta's copyright enforcement mechanism on Instagram was being misused by organised cyber criminals.

A Division Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also directed the petitioner to submit his grievance to Meta electronically within a week. It asked the company to consider the grievance and pass appropriate orders.

During the hearing, the Court observed that the petition raised concerns extending beyond individual copyright disputes.

"This is a larger issue. He (petitioner) has raised an issue regarding cyber crime and digital extortion," noted the Court.

The PIL was filed by digital content creator Nitin Joshi, who alleged that organised cyber-extortion rackets were exploiting Meta's copyright enforcement mechanism on Instagram by filing false copyright complaints against creators' original content.

The modus operandi employed by extortionists is to edit their old posts with the new content posted by original content creators and then allege copyright violation by flagging the edited older posts.

According to the plea, the resulting copyright strikes often lead to account suspension, after which the perpetrators allegedly demand lakhs of rupees to withdraw the complaints.

The PIL, among other reliefs, sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the alleged racket, restoration of accounts suspended without human review, a mandatory human review before permanent action is taken on copyright complaints, disclosure of complainants' identities, and a fast-track grievance mechanism for cases involving extortion or fraud. It also challenged certain provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, contending that they permit accounts to be disabled without prior notice.

Today, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, questioned the maintainability of the PIL. He argued that the Information Technology Rules already provide a statutory grievance redressal mechanism.

"He is saying your (Meta's) platform is defective and somebody is using it to create copyright problems. These are fact-driven questions. It can't be a PIL. I am saying file an application to the grievance officer," Datar submitted.

When the Court asked whether the issues raised by the petitioner could be addressed by the grievance officer, Datar replied in the affirmative. However, the Court observed that the petition appeared to raise wider concerns than an individual copyright dispute.

Datar maintained that the petitioner's grievance related to misuse of the platform by third parties rather than any defect in Meta's copyright enforcement system. He submitted that rogue individuals could exploit any mechanism and that Meta already had procedures to address such complaints.

"Any mechanism there will be rogue players. It can’t be helped. This platform is worldwide, it is not only for India. If he comes we will immediately take down, we will also have to give him [rogue persons] an opportunity. Then we will take down. There is also a grievance appellate mechanism," said Datar.

He also added that if the petitioner remained aggrieved after exhausting the statutory remedy, he could invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Tejbir Singh argued that the petition was not directed against Meta's copyright enforcement mechanism itself, but against its alleged misuse as a tool for cyber extortion.

Joshi submitted that the petitioner had become the target of false copyright strikes after uploading his original content, following which he began receiving emails demanding money for their withdrawal.

He further alleged that the demands came from anonymous email addresses without any meaningful verification of the complainants' identities.

"I made a video to raise awareness on this issue, then it gets taken down. It is not just extortion. There is a criminal angle on this, probably Bangladesh. That is why we are seeking police investigation. Meta is aware of this and they are solving it for individual cases. A big media house faces the same issue," Joshi told the Court.

Appearing for Meta, advocate Varun Pathak submitted that while the platform relied on automated tools to process copyright complaints, no automated system was infallible.

"Under the IT Rules we have automated tools to protect copyrights. It is not a perfect mechanism. Only 5-7 cases have come to the court. The bad actors somehow have access and are negotiating with them. Our difficulty is that they don't invoke the grievance mechanism. No system is perfect. If it was invoked it would be solved," argued Pathak.

After considering the arguments, the Court issued notice to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Delhi government.

However, the Court clarified that while the petitioner had referred to around 40 similarly placed content creators, those individuals would have to pursue their own remedies independently.

"You refer to other 40 accounts, digital creators, but they do not have a similar grievance. It should not be at the strength of our order, they can move individually," the Court observed.

The matter will be heard next on September 21.

[Read Live Coverage]