A Division Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also directed petitioner Nitin Joshi, a digital content creator, to submit his grievance electronically to Meta within a week. The company was asked to examine the complaint and take an appropriate decision.
During the hearing, the Bench remarked that the case appeared to raise issues extending beyond an individual copyright dispute. It observed that the allegations pointed to a broader concern involving cybercrime and digital extortion.
The petition alleges that cyberextortionists manipulate Instagram’s copyright reporting process by editing their older posts to incorporate content originally created by others and then claiming copyright infringement against the genuine creators.
According to the plea, repeated copyright strikes often result in the suspension of creators’ accounts, after which the perpetrators allegedly demand large sums of money to withdraw the complaints.
The PIL seeks the constitution of a special investigation team to probe the alleged racket, restoration of accounts suspended without human review, mandatory human verification before permanent action is taken on copyright complaints, disclosure of complainants’ identities, and a fast-track grievance mechanism for complaints involving extortion or fraud. It also challenges provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, contending that they allow accounts to be disabled without prior notice.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, argued that the PIL was not maintainable as the IT Rules already provide a statutory grievance redress mechanism.
Datar submitted that the petition involved fact-specific allegations concerning misuse of the platform by third parties rather than any defect in Meta’s copyright enforcement system. He said the petitioner should first approach the platform’s grievance officer.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Tejbir Singh contended that the challenge was aimed at organised cyberextortion exploiting Meta’s processes rather than the copyright enforcement mechanism itself. Joshi also claimed that after posting original content, he received copyright complaints followed by anonymous emails demanding money to withdraw them.
Meta’s counsel, Varun Pathak, submitted that while copyright complaints are processed using automated tools, no automated system is flawless and the existing grievance mechanism could address genuine complaints.
While issuing notice to the Ministries of Electronics and Information Technology and Home Affairs, as well as the Delhi government, the HC clarified that other content creators claiming similar grievances would have to pursue their own remedies independently.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 21.
 "insta, instagram, social media")