Delhi High Court Flags Misuse Of Meta's Copyright Strike System, Calls It 'Platform For Extortion By Bad Actors'

The Delhi High Court has recorded Meta Platforms' assurance that it will ensure user accounts are not blocked due to fraudulent copyright strikes, while observing that the platform's current enforcement mechanism has become a tool for "blackmail" and "extortion."

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made the observations while hearing two separate suits filed by content creators Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh and Prateek Sahni.

The matters reached the Court after the plaintiffs' accounts or videos were taken down following a series of allegedly fabricated copyright infringement notices. In Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh's case, Meta informed the court that his account had been restored but continued to carry disclaimers relating to "inauthentic engagement."

Meta's counsel submitted that these restrictions stemmed from separate scam-related strikes unrelated to the copyright dispute. The Court noted that the platform's automated systems often function without human intervention.

Justice Bhambhani remarked, "The manner in which your platforms are working has given so many people opportunity of blackmail." He further observed that it has "become a platform for extortion in certain ways... by bad actors."

In the second suit filed by Prateek Sahni, the Court was informed that the disputed videos had been restored after the alleged scammers withdrew their copyright claims and apologised. Meta clarified that it restored the videos after verifying the claims.

Despite the restoration, the plaintiff sought continued protection against future fraudulent copyright strikes. The Court questioned whether the suit should continue once the primary grievance had been addressed.

Justice Bhambhani suggested that content creators should also test the grievance redressal mechanism under the Information Technology Rules instead of approaching the court over every individual reel.

During the hearing, the discussion focused on the lack of human oversight in Meta's copyright enforcement process. The court questioned why the platform's automated systems could not detect obvious irregularities in copyright complaints, while counsel for the plaintiffs also raised concerns about backdated copyright claims.

Meta responded that it was introducing technological measures to identify bad actors in real time but said the sheer volume of billions of posts made human intervention impracticable.

Justice Bhambhani observed, "I don't think I can say that what they are doing is illegal. They have to adopt a hands-off approach." However, he emphasised the need for stronger safeguards to prevent the platform from being misused by bad actors.

The court declined to pass broad "umbrella" directions but granted the plaintiffs liberty to report any future fraudulent copyright strikes to Meta for verification.

Meta assured the court that it would investigate such complaints and take appropriate steps to ensure accounts are not blocked due to fraudulent repeat copyright infringement claims.

The court granted Meta four weeks to file a detailed reply regarding the account restrictions and listed the matters for further hearing on October 27, 2026.