Delhi High Court to Review Social Media Account Suspensions Due to Copyright Strikes
The Delhi High Court is poised to determine the legality of social media platforms suspending or deleting user accounts based on copyright infringement claims. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has framed this pivotal issue for examination by the court. The central question is whether the mechanism of account suspension and subsequent deletion, following copyright strikes by social media platforms, breaches the legal principles established in the landmark cases of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and MySpace Inc. vs Super Cassettes Industries Limited.
Major platforms such as Meta, Google, and Telegram have been instructed to address this critical issue in their forthcoming responses to the lawsuit and interim injunction application. The next hearing is scheduled for September 24.
Background of the Case
The court’s order arises from a lawsuit filed by digital content creator Saurabh Maurya, known online as “IITian Trader.” Maurya’s Instagram account was suspended by Meta due to what he claims were fraudulent copyright strikes on his content. He is also seeking damages from those allegedly abusing Meta’s copyright enforcement mechanism as part of an extortion scheme.
Represented by Senior Advocate Diya Kapur and Advocate Nakul Gandhi, Maurya’s legal team has argued that the current handling of copyright strikes by social media intermediaries misinterprets the legal standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal and by the Delhi High Court in MySpace. Kapur contends that, according to the Information Technology Act and the Copyright Act, intermediaries are not entitled to suspend accounts based solely on copyright claims without due process.
Arguments and Legal Implications
Kapur highlighted that intermediaries’ discretion in such matters contradicts the principles laid out in Shreya Singhal and MySpace. “Individuals falsely claim copyright ownership, prompting platforms to remove content without proper verification,” Kapur argued, adding that this leads to undue burdens on content creators who must seek court intervention for account restoration.
More Read
She suggested that the MySpace ruling needs clarification, advocating that only registered or court-affirmed copyright holders should have the authority to request content removal on infringement grounds.
Meta’s Response and Current Status
Varun Pathak, representing Meta, informed the court that 13 copyright strikes against Maurya’s account were identified as fraudulent, leading to the restoration of his account. Pathak assured the court that, pending Maurya’s provision of evidence proving the falseness of any future strikes, his content would not be removed.
In addition to Diya Kapur and Nakul Gandhi, Maurya’s legal team includes Advocates Darshit Sidhabhatti, Siddhi Sahoo, and Raghav Kumar.
