The Delhi High Court on Tuesday framed an important question on whether the copyright strike mechanism adopted by social media platforms for taking down content and suspending user accounts is consistent with the principles laid down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., while hearing a suit filed by content creator Saurabh Maurya after his Instagram account was suspended pursuant to allegedly fraudulent copyright strikes.
Before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, Sr Adv Diya Kapur along with Adv Nakul Gandhi submitted that third parties had uploaded the plaintiff’s own videos on other platforms, manipulated their upload dates, and thereafter issued copyright strikes claiming ownership of the content. Acting on those claims, the platform suspended Maurya’s Instagram account, despite him being the original creator of the videos. During the hearing, Meta informed the Court that the copyright strikes had been found to be fake, the strikes had been reversed, and the suspended account had been restored.
The plaintiff nevertheless contended that the existing copyright strike mechanism is itself legally flawed, arguing that intermediaries cannot suspend accounts merely on the basis of private copyright claims. Relying on Shreya Singhal, it was argued that an intermediary cannot adjudicate competing copyright claims and should act only upon a court order or a notification issued by the appropriate government. It was further submitted that the Delhi High Court’s decision in MySpace has been incorrectly interpreted to justify action on private copyright notices, enabling abuse of the system through false copyright claims.
Observing that the submissions raise an important legal issue, Justice Bhambhani framed for consideration whether the existing practice of taking down content, suspending accounts and their subsequent deletion based on copyright strikes is compatible with the principles governing intermediary liability under the Information Technology Act and the Copyright Act, as explained in Shreya Singhal and MySpace. The Court directed the defendants to specifically address this issue in their replies.
Recording Meta’s statement that the plaintiff’s suspended account had already been restored and the copyright strikes reversed, the Court also provided interim protection by directing that, if the plaintiff demonstrates that any future copyright strikes are prima facie false and relate to content legitimately owned by him, the platform shall deal with the issue in terms of the Court’s directions pending further consideration. The matter has been listed for 24 September 2026.
