- 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 Criticizes Meta's Handling Of TV Today Network's Instagram Account Suspension Complaint
Delhi High Court Criticizes Meta's Handling Of TV Today Network's Instagram Account Suspension Complaint
The Delhi High Court has admonished Meta for its handling of a complaint filed by TV Today Network concerning the suspension of its Instagram account associated with Harper's Bazaar India.
Earlier this month, media conglomerate TV Today Network petitioned the court, challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
A division bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P.S. Arora expressed discontent with Meta's response, remarking that the social media platform's management of the complaint was "far worse than a government department.”
In the course of the proceedings, the Court Directed TV Today's Legal Counsel, advocate Hrishikesh Baruah, to fill out a form provided through Instagram's grievance redressal hyperlink, with Meta's legal representative, Advocate Tejas Karia, in attendance.
However, despite filling out the form, Meta reportedly rejected the complaint, prompting further frustration from the bench.
The court reprimanded Meta for its inadequate handling of the complaint and cautioned that if the issue persisted, it would preliminarily conclude that the platform was intentionally delaying the process.
The bench emphasized the importance of Meta streamlining its grievance redressal mechanism promptly and effectively.
Karia informed the court that the email sent to TV Today was an automated response and not a definitive decision to reject the complaint. However, the court admonished Meta, declaring that such responses were unacceptable and likening the platform's inefficiency to that of a government department.
As a result, the court scheduled the matter for the next hearing on May 1 and instructed Meta to send an email to TV Today acknowledging receipt of the complaint and ensuring that it would be promptly addressed.
Previously, the court had issued notices to all pertinent parties, including the Union of India, and instructed them to provide responses by May 17.
The rule in question requires intermediaries to regularly inform users about their rights and the repercussions of non-compliance with the rules and regulations.
TV Today Network contended that this rule infringes upon constitutional provisions as it seeks alignment with existing laws and constitutional articles.
It voiced its grievance regarding the suspension of its Instagram account for Harper's Bazaar India due to third-party Copyright Complaints.
"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 Court had noted.
The network's Legal Counsel argued that the suspension violated constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 19 and claimed fair use under Section 52 of the Copyright Act for the flagged content. However, the court stated that it couldn't intervene until Instagram authorities were present before it.
TV Today Network had also pledged to appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee as per the IT Rules. The bench directed the committee to expedite the decision, preferably within two weeks, if an appeal is filed.