Madras High Court Rejects YouTube's Summary Dismissal Plea In Sri Eshwar College Disparagement Case

The Madras High Court on 28 August declined to summarily dismiss a suit filed by Sri Eshwar College of Engineering against YouTube (Google LLC) over allegedly disparaging videos hosted on the platform, holding that the issue of non-joinder of the video originators could not be decided at the threshold.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu was hearing an application filed by YouTube seeking dismissal of the suit at the threshold, without the matter proceeding to trial. Instead, the Bench directed the College to take steps to implead the video originators as party defendants within eight weeks from receipt of the order. It held:

“In such a scenario, where admittedly video URLs had been listed in the pleadings, this Court is of the view that the contention that there is no cause of action in view of non-joinder of parties cannot be decided at the present stage.”

Sri Eshwar College of Engineering had instituted the suit against YouTube seeking a permanent injunction restraining the platform from telecasting or disseminating videos published through channels titled "Career Guidance Scam," "Logomass79," "Career Guide 2.0" and "Career Guidance Scam 2.0", which allegedly disparaged the College's brand.

The College also sought directions to YouTube to remove the videos and disclose identifying information of the alleged infringers, including their IP addresses and phone numbers. The Madras High Court had earlier granted leave to institute the suit in November 2024.

YouTube argued that the College had no real cause of action against the platform, which was merely an intermediary hosting content uploaded by third parties. It also contended that the College had failed to implead the actual creators of the videos as parties to the suit.

Considering the failure to implead the video originators, the Court noted that, as far back as 2015, it had recorded a statement by the College's counsel that steps would be taken to add them as defendants. However, the Court noted that no such steps had been taken.

The Bench also noted that a separate application seeking disclosure of the identifying details of the alleged infringers from YouTube remained pending. It held that the failure to implead the originators could not, at this stage, be treated as a ground to summarily dismiss the suit, particularly since the video URLs had been specifically identified in the pleadings.

While declining to dismiss the suit at the threshold, the Court directed the College to take necessary steps to implead the video originators as party defendants within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

“For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any reason to make an order... to summarily dismiss the suit on the grounds raised. However, in the interest of justice... the present application is dismissed with the direction to the respondent to take necessary action for impleading the originators by arraying the originators as party defendants to the suit within a period of eight (8) weeks.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed YouTube's application.