Centre and Meta Face Court Inquiry

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday ordered the Union government, the Delhi administration and Meta Platforms to answer a public interest litigation that alleges the social‑media giant’s copyright enforcement tools on Instagram are being exploited by organized cyber‑criminals.

Petitioner’s claims and court directives

Digital creator Nitin Joshi filed the petition, saying that extortion rings edit their older Instagram posts to mirror new content uploaded by creators and then lodge false copyright complaints. The resulting strikes often trigger account suspensions, after which the perpetrators demand large sums to withdraw the complaints.

The bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora instructed Joshi to submit his grievance to Meta electronically within a week and asked the company to consider the complaint and issue appropriate orders.

During the hearing, the court noted that the issues raised extended beyond a single copyright dispute. “This is a larger issue,” the judges remarked, adding that the petitioner highlighted concerns of cyber crime and digital extortion.

Meta’s response and legal arguments

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing Meta, questioned whether the petition was maintainable, pointing to the grievance redressal mechanism already prescribed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. “He is saying your platform is defective and somebody is using it to create copyright problems. These are fact‑driven questions. It can’t be a PIL,” Datar said, urging the petitioner to file an application with the grievance officer.

Advocate Varun Pathak, also for Meta, explained that the company relies on automated systems to process copyright complaints but acknowledged that no system is flawless. “Only five to seven cases have come to the court. The bad actors somehow have access and are negotiating with them,” he said, adding that many complainants do not invoke the existing grievance mechanism.

Both counsel emphasized that any platform, especially one with a global user base, can be misused by rogue actors and that Meta already has an appellate grievance process in place.

Related: Kerala judges find grim conditions at mental health centre

In a brief interjection, the court observed that while the petitioner mentioned about 40 other creators facing similar problems, each would need to pursue its own remedy. “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 judges stated.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 21, after notices were issued to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Delhi government.

Given the limited data on how often Meta’s automated tools are abused, it is plausible that the platform’s existing mechanisms may not be sufficient to deter coordinated extortion schemes.

A more proactive monitoring approach could reduce the need for court intervention, though such a shift would require balancing privacy concerns with enforcement efficacy.

Joshi told the court that after uploading an original video, he received emails demanding money for its removal, with the complainants hiding behind anonymous addresses. “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, probably Bangladesh. That is why we are seeking police investigation,” he said.

The petition also seeks the formation of a Special Investigation Team, restoration of accounts suspended without human review, mandatory human assessment before permanent action, disclosure of complainants’ identities and a fast‑track grievance process for cases involving extortion or fraud.

Legal experts note that the Information Technology Rules already provide a statutory grievance redressal path, but the effectiveness of this avenue depends on user awareness and timely filing. The court’s request for responses from both the government and Meta may clarify whether existing provisions are being applied consistently.