- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Condemns Meta’s Handling Of TV Today’s Complaint
Delhi High Court Condemns Meta’s Handling Of TV Today’s Complaint
Accuses it of being far worse than a government department
The Delhi High Court has censured Meta for taking TV Today Network’s complaint lightly on suspension of its Instagram account for Harper’s Bazaar India.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora expressed dissatisfaction with Meta's response, stating that the Social Media Platform's handling of the complaint was “far worse than a government department.”
Last month, the media conglomerate approached the Court challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The court then directed the counsel for TV Today, advocate Hrishikesh Baruah, to fill out a form on Instagram's grievance redressal hyperlink in the presence of Meta's counsel, advocate Tejas Karia.
However, despite doing that, Meta spurned the complaint, leading to a curt response from the judges.
While reprimanding Meta for not addressing the grievance, the bench warned that if the issue persisted, it would make a prima facie observation that the social media platform was deliberately stalling the process. It stressed that Meta should streamline its grievance redressal mechanism and ensure prompt and efficient handling of complaints.
Karia informed the court that the email sent to TV Today was an ‘automatic reply’ and not a decision to reject the complaint.
However, the court rebuked him, stating that such a response was unacceptable. It directed Meta to email to TV Today acknowledging receipt of the complaint and assuring that it would be addressed promptly.
Earlier, the court had served a notice to all relevant parties, including the Government of India, directing them to respond by 17 May.
The rules mandate intermediaries to periodically inform the users about their rights and the consequences of non-compliance with the regulations.
TV Today asserted its grievance over suspending its Instagram account arguing that the rule infringed upon the constitutional provisions.
The Court had noted, "The petitioners are aggrieved by the suspension of petitioner No.1's Instagram account created for its magazine Harper's Bazaar India i.e., @bazaarindia' based on third-party copyright complaints.”
The network's counsel had argued that the suspension violated the constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 19 and claimed fair use under Section 52 of the Copyright content.
However, the Court refrained from intervening until the officials from Instagram were present.
As per the IT Rules, TV Today decided to appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee.
The bench thus ordered the Committee to expedite the decision, preferably within two weeks, if an appeal was filed.