Intermediaries' Obligation to Pursue Complaints Against Infringers: Analysing the Latest Interpretation

The recent interim order dated March 1, 2023, issued by the Delhi High Court in Samridhi Enterprises vs. Flipkart Internet Private Ltd.[1] had sparked a lot of debate and confusion among the public concerning the liability of an intermediary. As per the order of the High Court, an intermediary is not obligated to take action in cases of infringement reported by their users. The Hon’ble Court delved deeply into the interpretation of Rule 3 of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, on the question of whether there exists an obligation on the part of intermediaries to act on complaints against infringers.   

Facts

The plaintiff was in the business of manufacturing and selling car covers under the marks “UK Blue” and “Autofact” and had been selling them on Flipkart since 2018. The plaintiff happened to notice that some other entities started to copy their designs, looks and marketing strategies on the Flipkart platform itself. Apart from the fact that the covers were identical, the infringers also sold these covers in a fashion similar to that of the plaintiff’s company to create confusion and boost their sales.

The plaintiff had informed and reported to Flipkart about the infringement of their products by placing screenshots and other similar evidences of infringement committed by the infringer on record. The platform refused to take any action against the infringers and advised the plaintiff to approach a court of law for redressal of IPR disputes.

The plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court, citing that Flipkart cannot act as an intermediary if it fails to adhere to its obligations as an intermediary and to observe important due diligence mandated by Rule 3(2) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Law Involved

Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) requires intermediaries to inform their users of their privacy policy, rules and regulations and user agreement and shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that any information that infringes any patent, copyright, trademark, or other proprietary rights shall not be hosted, displayed, uploaded, modified, published, transmitted, stored, updated, or shared by the intermediary.

Rule 3(2)(a) of the IT rules requires the intermediary to publish on its website the details of the grievance officer and the mechanism by which a user could complain about any possible violations. Further, it requires the officer to acknowledge the complaint within 24 hours and resolve the issue within a period of 15 days.  

The plaintiff relied on these two sections to further their claim of infringement against Flipkart. 

Rule 3 (2)(1) (proviso) provides for intermediaries to acknowledge any complaint within 24 hours and resolve all such complaints within 15 days from their receipt. Moreover, the proviso also calls upon the intermediary to develop appropriate safeguards to avoid any misuse by users.

The Ruling

The Hon’ble Court was of the opinion that Rule 3(2)(a) only envisages complaints regarding violations of the obligation imposed on the intermediary under the rules. There is no scope for the intermediary to take any kind of action against the infringer upon receipt of the complaint. The same argument was also put forth by the court when the question surrounding Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) was raised, and the court clarified that the rule merely provides for intermediaries to inform users not to display or host infringing content. The rule does not mandate or require the intermediary to take any action upon receipt of the complaint of infringement.   

The Hon’ble Court stated that it cannot read into IT rules something that the rules do not contain expressly or by necessary implication. It further said that, “where the applicable statutory rules do not envisage action being taken by an intermediary merely on the complaint being made by an aggrieved victim or user regarding infringement of intellectual property rights, by content posted on the platform of the intermediary, the court cannot, by placing reliance on an internal policy of a particular intermediary, read into Clause 3 any such requirement, especially where such a provision existed in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and has consciously been omitted in the 2021 Rules”.  

The Hon’ble Court was of the opinion that the complaint against Flipkart that it is not taking action does not appear to be sustainable due to the above-mentioned reasons. However, a prima facie case of copyright violation was made out by the court and in order to protect the plaintiff from any further damages, an interlocutory injunction was granted against listing the alleged infringing content.

General Observations 

Though the Hon’ble Court did grant the injunction to protect the plaintiff from the ongoing infringement occurring on the platform, the main essence of the IT Act and rules was not taken into consideration while discharging Flipkart of any liability.

The plaintiff erred in not considering the many precedents laid by this very same court. For instance, in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. vs. Myspace Inc. & Anr1, the court said that “I find that there is no impact of the provisions of Section 79 of the IT Act (as amended in 2009) on copyright infringements relating to internet wrongs where intermediaries are involved and the said provision cannot curtail the rights of the copyright owner by operation of the proviso of Section 81 which carves out an exception for cases relating to copyright or patent infringement”. 

The case witnessed that the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, overrode the provision of the safe harbour granted by the IT Act under Section 79. The Hon’ble Court relied on Section 81 of the IT Act, which provides for an exemption for people exercising their rights under the Copyright Act and the Patent Act. The Hon’ble Court should have recognised this precedent and acknowledged the obligation it posed to the intermediary to remove such infringing products from its platform.   

It doesn’t end here. The court should have considered in what instance the immunity available for intermediaries will be impacted under Section 79 of the IT Act. Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act states that upon receiving actual knowledge of an unlawful act connected to the computer resource controlled by the intermediary, the intermediary shall expeditiously remove or disable access to such infringing material. If such action is not undertaken by the intermediary, it shall lose the safe harbour guaranteed by Section 79. If safe harbour protection is not available, then allowing an infringement to take place on their platform may constitute abetment and unlawful activity which in turn would make them liable under the law of the land.  

Another striking part of the order is that, even though the Hon’ble Court completely relied on the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the court failed to read into Rule 3 (2) (1) of the IT Rules 2021. The proviso of the rule clearly stipulates that any complaint received from the user other than under Subclauses (i), (iv), and (ix) needs to be expeditiously resolved within 72 hours by the grievance officer. That does not take away the primary obligation of the intermediary to act within the 15 days mandated in the main provision in relation to such excluded matters, including cases of IP infringement. It is astonishing that the court or the parties gave more emphasis to the proviso than the main clause under Rule 3(2)(a)(i). 

Initially, Rule 3(2)(b) was worded as follows: “(i) acknowledge the complaint within twenty-four hours and dispose off such complaint within a period of fifteen days from the date of its receipt;  

(ii) receive and acknowledge any order, notice or direction issued by the Appropriate Government, any competent authority or a court of competent jurisdiction.”.   

On October 28, 2022, the government amended the above rule to read as follows: “acknowledge the complaint within twenty-four hours and resolve such complaint within a period of fifteen days from the date of its receipt: 

Provided that the complaint in the nature of request for removal of information or communication link relating to clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3, except sub-clauses (i), (iv) and (ix), shall be acted upon as expeditiously as possible and shall be resolved within seventy-two hours of such reporting;  

Provided further that appropriate safeguards may be developed by the intermediary to avoid any misuse by users;” 

The intention of this amendment is to prescribe faster action for certain kinds of wrongdoings and expect them to act within 72 hours. At the same time, for those others (sub-clauses (i), (iv) and (ix)) the original time frame of 15 days for taking action remains. Without a doubt, the goal of this amendment is not to encourage platform users to behave irresponsibly or complacently despite being aware that the platform is frequently used to violate intellectual property rights. It merely provides them with sufficient time and excludes the requirement of compliance within 72 hours.

The intermediary is still obligated to undertake the due diligence described in Rule 3(1)(b)(iv), and if they do not do so and do not take action within fifteen days even after becoming aware of the infringement, the immunity from liability specified in Section 79 will end. The safe harbour will be eliminated because the proviso to Section 81 of the IT Act clearly indicates that IP rights are to be expected to be protected by the intermediary.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Court was right in granting the injunction in favour of the plaintiff to restrain Flipkart from allowing such infringing products on their platforms.

However, the Hon’ble Court erred by not making a harmonious reading of Rule 3 (2) (a) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, with Section 79 (3) (b) and the proviso to Section 81 of the IT Act. An isolated reading of the provision and discharging Flipkart of their liability under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 seems to be an oversight.

The proviso appended to the said section provides that nothing contained in this act shall restrict the exercising of any right by any person under the Copyright Act. This, along with Section 79 (3) of the IT Act, mandates the intermediary not to conspire, abet or aid any infringement and to remove the infringing material on receiving actual knowledge of it.  

The above-referred order will only help the intermediaries and platforms to behave irresponsibly and indifferently even when an intellectual property owner notifies them of infringement on their platforms. It compels aggrieved intellectual property owners to initiate legal action for every infringement, which is expensive to carry out. IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, was primarily made to make the platforms more responsible and ethical. Allowing them to act irresponsibly through a limited interpretation of law is unconscionable.

References:

1. CS (COMM) 63/2023

The recent interim order dated March 1, 2023, issued by the Delhi High Court in Samridhi Enterprises vs. Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. (CS (COMM) 63/2023) had sparked a lot of debate and confusion among the public concerning the liability of an intermediary. Though the Hon’ble Court did grant the injunction to protect the plaintiff from the on-going infringement occurring on the platform, the main essence of the IT Act and rules was not taken into consideration while discharging Flipkart of any liability.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Decoding IT Amendment Rules: The Hits and Misses

  • April 18, 2023
  • Padma Sinha
  • Sanjana Sreenath

On April 6, 2023, the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 to amend the 2021 Rules. In this article, the important changes introduced to the Rules are highlighted.

Introduction

Through the amendment, the Ministry intends to make a few changes to the intermediary eco-system by introducing new due-diligence requirements for intermediaries. It can be broadly summarised under two heads – partial censorship of digital media, and regulation of online gaming intermediaries. 

Partial censorship of digital media

The new amendment requires social media intermediaries, significant social media intermediaries and online gaming intermediaries to follow additional due diligence. It aims to regulate digital media by disallowing the publication of such information related to the business of the Central Government which is identified or declared as fake, false, or misleading by a fact-checking unit set up by the Central Government. This addition to the rules would make it mandatory for the intermediaries to take down (when given a notice by the user) any piece of information that is declared fake or misleading by the fact-checking authority. It is unclear from the amendment if the information checked by the already established fact-checking authority would warrant take-down, but with the available information, it would be reasonable to assume that any information fact-checked and deemed fake by the PIB fact-check mechanism would warrant takedown.

This part of the amendment has been challenged by a political satirist, Mr. Kunal Kamra. He filed a writ petition with the Bombay High Court with the averment that the amendment with respect to establishing a separate unit by the Central government to fact-check digital media is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution and that it is ultra vires Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Bombay High Court has now directed MeitY to file its response within one week on why the IT Amendment Rules, 2023 should not be stayed, and also describe the factual background that necessitated the issuance of the amendments. The affidavit has been ordered to be filed by April 19, 2023, and the matter has been listed on April 21, 2023.

Regulation of online gaming intermediaries

Earlier, a draft of the amendment (pertaining to online gaming) to the 2021 Rules was released in January 2023; though the draft lacked clarity on the kind of online games it intended to regulate (click here to read more). Further, it did not delve into differentiating between games that are in the form of wagering/betting and those which are not. The current amendment attempts to overcome these shortcomings by providing for an ‘online gaming intermediary’ and stipulating the due-diligence requirements for such intermediaries.  

The amendment defines an online gaming intermediary as one that enables users to access one or more online games. It further defines an ‘online real money game’ that is played with real money, where the users are asked to deposit money. The amendment allows the online gaming intermediary to host only those games which are permissible online games and are certified by the online gaming self-regulatory body.

Disallowing online wagering and betting games.

As per the new amendment, social media intermediaries or online gaming intermediaries are not allowed to host an online game which is not verified as a ‘permissible online game’, or any information or content which is in the nature of an advertisement or a surrogate advertisement of such non-permissible online games. It also prohibits the hosting of such games that causes harm to the user.

Permissible online real money game

The amendment further clarifies that for a game to be certified as a permissible online real money game, any member of the online gaming self-regulatory body that enables online real money game can make an application to the online gaming self-regulatory body. The said private body is set up for the sole purpose of acting as an online-gaming self-regulatory body and is notified by the Central Government. It has the power to decide whether an online game is permissible or not. The regulatory body will inquire and ensure that the game does not involve any wagering and that the gaming intermediaries or the online game undertakes all the due diligence laid down in the Rules. Additionally, it shall also ensure that the permitted games are not against the interest of the country. It also has safeguards that protect users against harm, risk of addiction, financial loss, fraud, etc by providing repeated warnings or such. The body is required to adhere to the principles of natural justice. While the self-regulatory body has the power to certify an online game as a permissible one, the Central Government still reserves the right to suspend the certification if it believes that the said game is not in conformity with the Rules.

This is a private body set up for the sole purpose of acting as an online-gaming self-regulatory body and is notified by the Central Government. In brief, they have the power to decide whether an online game is permissible or not.

Due-diligence requirements

Previously, Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules stipulated the due-diligence requirements for social media intermediaries and significant social media intermediaries. With this amendment, such due-diligence requirements in Rules 3 and 4 are extended to online gaming intermediaries too.

Through these amendments, in addition to the existing due diligence requirements under Rules 3 and 4, the online gaming intermediaries that enable permissible real money games have certain additional due-diligence requirements like requiring to display a visible mark of verification, and inform the users about the policy related to the deposit and withdrawal of money, the KYC norms that they follow, the measures taken to protect the deposits made amongst others.  

Online games which are not real-money games do not have to follow the additional due-diligence requirements by default, the Central Government by notification may direct an intermediary to undertake certain due-diligence requirements.

Conclusion

The IT amendment rules are an improvement on the previously proposed amendment to the 2021 Rules. The definitional ambiguity is removed and a step is taken toward regulating online games that are based on wagering. It also makes the self-regulation of online gaming intermediaries more transparent by stipulating for disclosure of decision-making reasons, etc.

Image Credits:

Photo by anyaberkut: https://www.canva.com/photos/MADCr_H7g_U-it-concept-information-technology-diagram/ 

The new amendment requires social media intermediaries, significant social media intermediaries and online gaming intermediaries to follow additional due diligence. It aims to regulate digital media by disallowing the publication of such information related to the business of the Central Government which is identified or declared as fake, false, or misleading by a fact-checking unit set up by the Central Government. This addition to the rules would make it mandatory for the intermediaries to take down (when given a notice by the user) any piece of information that is declared fake or misleading by the fact-checking authority. It is unclear from the amendment if the information checked by the already established fact-checking authority would warrant take-down, but with the available information, it would be reasonable to assume that any information fact-checked and deemed fake by the PIB fact-check mechanism would warrant takedown.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

A Look at Recent Developments Having an Impact on India’s Legal Services Sector

  • April 11, 2023
  • Shuva Mandal

India’s economic growth is a spontaneous generator of business for law firms and the country seems to have regained its mojo despite the impact of the pandemic, continuing global geopolitical tensions and high inflation. We are expected to be one of the fastest-growing large economies in 2023, by various estimates.

Apart from the inherent attractiveness of India’s domestic market, the implementation or tweaking of various policies (e.g., the Production Linked Incentive scheme, the opening of the space sector to the private sector and encouragement of public-private partnerships, regulations around drones, etc.) has been a major force of economic activity. There is also the fact that multiple new technologies (AI/ML, drones, 5G, IIoT, 3D printing, etc.) have matured rapidly, creating new use cases in business, healthcare, retail, defence, space, agriculture, mining, governance, etc.  In turn, these have evolved as new ventures. 

For law firms and lawyers, such a multi-faceted business expansion is a growth enabler. The slowdown in certain sectors (IT and edtech, for example) has led to the unfortunate consequence of layoffs. This trend is visible not just among newer ventures but also applies to unicorns and more-established enterprises. This too is a driver of growth for professionals in the legal sector.

Factors that will impact Indian law firms

Three specific triggers will shape the fortunes of law firms and lawyers in the next year or so, which are as follows: –

  • The operationalizing of Grievance Appellate Committees (GACs);
  • The Bar Council’s decision to allow foreign law firms/lawyers to practice in India (under certain conditions); and
  • The trend of global enterprises from different sectors establishing and growing their captives (GCCs) in India.

Grievance Appellate Committees

The Grievance Appellate Committees (GACs) were constituted under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to make the internet and social media platforms (the so-called “intermediaries”) safer and more trusted and the platform or service providers and users more accountable. 

Social media users who have complained to social media firms such as Meta, Twitter, Google etc. and have not received a satisfactory response from the firms’ designated grievance officers can appeal to the GAC which is a digital platform operational w.e.f. March 1, 2023. After due consideration of every appeal, the GAC will either uphold or overrule the decision of the social media intermediary’s grievance officer; it may also recommend that the intermediary take different actions altogether from what was recommended or taken by the grievance officers.

To comply with the new rules, social media intermediaries will need to ensure that adequate legal professionals are allocated to review user complaints, advise grievance officers and represent the social media intermediary before the GAC. This is important because non-compliance can result in significant financial liabilities (including legal costs and penalties).

Conditional permission for foreign lawyers or law firms to operate in India

The Bar Council of India recently permitted foreign lawyers and law firms to practise in India in non-litigation matters around foreign law, diverse international law and arbitration. Of course, this is subject to reciprocity i.e., Indian lawyers or firms being allowed to practice in those jurisdictions.

Although it is too early to predict the specific impact of this decision and how long it might take for these to show up, it can be said that this move will eventually affect both revenue and cost structures for Indian law firms. As foreign firms establish a presence in India, we can expect the following changes: –

  • Indian firms will see a reduction in referrals from foreign firms (a significant source of business for many firms); and
  • Some Indian legal professionals will move to foreign firms. The entry of foreign firms will also raise the general compensation level in the industry, putting further pressure on the profitability of firms that rely more on corporate advisory. Indian firms will also have to look at ways to keep their partners and staff engaged and money may not be the only avenue to do so.

But given that new laws are coming up around complex new technologies such as AI, space etc., it is a good thing that India will get access to global specialists. This will also help India’s lawmakers frame more effective legislation in the days ahead.

More Global Capability Centres in India

Given India’s large technical talent pool, many global corporations established their captive centres in India over the past decade or so. The mandate of these GCCs was to develop and support the IT needs of the enterprise. This was seen as an alternative to IT outsourcing, and a more effective way to ensure that confidential information remains within the company’s direct control.

Buoyed by the success of their captives and given that IT/Digital was becoming deeply embedded within every business, enterprises from more industries began to increase their investments to scale up their GCCs. Innovation, product design, UX, R&D, analytics, AI, etc. have all been included in the expanded mandate for GCCs.

If the parent company has a relationship with a certain law firm, then the latter may be incentivised to establish operations in India sooner than they may otherwise have planned. Therefore, this is another factor that plays a role in determining the growth of some law firms and lawyers in India.

Conclusion

It is difficult to predict how each of these trends will shape the Indian legal services sector; this depends on which force is dominant and how long it takes for their respective impact. But it is fair to say that the next few years will belong to those law firms that are prepared to adapt and respond to these and other forces shaping the industry.

Image Credits:

Photo by Sora Shimazaki: https://www.pexels.com/photo/serious-ethnic-lawyer-discussing-new-case-with-colleague-5668798/

Apart from the inherent attractiveness of India’s domestic market, the implementation or tweaking of various policies (e.g., the Production Linked Incentive scheme, the opening of the space sector to the private sector and encouragement of public-private partnerships, regulations around drones, etc.) has been a major force of economic activity. For law firms and lawyers, such a multi-faceted business expansion is a growth enabler. 

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code: Shifting Paradigm of Social & Digital Media Platforms

It has been just over six months since the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (the “Rules“) have been notified. However, these six months have been nothing short of a roller coaster ride for the (Internet) Intermediaries and Digital Media platforms, especially Social Media platforms who have tried to muddle through the slew of compliance obligations now imposed through these eccentric Rules. Notwithstanding, some of them had to face the wrath of the Government and even Courts for the delay in adherence.

On this topic, we are trying to stitch together a series of articles covering the entire gamut of the Rules, including their objective, applicability, impact, and the key issues around some of the rules being declared unconstitutional, etc.

In our first article, we analyse the timeline, objectives, and applicability of these Rules through some of the definitions provided under the Rules and the IT Act.

Tracing the Roots of the Digital Media Ethics Code 

The initiation of this endeavour can be tracked down to July 26, 2018, when a Calling Attention Motion was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the misuse of social media and spread of fake news, whereby the Minister of Electronics and Information Technology conveyed the Government’s intent to strengthen the existing legal framework and make social media platforms accountable under the law. Thereafter, the first draft of the proposed amendments to the Intermediary Guidelines, The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules) 2018, was published for public comments on December 24, 2018.

In the same year, the Supreme Court in Prajwala v. Union of India[1] directed the Union Government to form necessary guidelines or Statement of Procedures (SOPs) to curb child pornography online. An ad-hoc committee of the Rajya Sabha studied the issue of pornography on social media and its effects on children and the society and laid its report recommending the facilitation of identification of the first originator of such contents in February 2020.

In another matter, the Supreme Court of India on October 15 2020, issued a notice to the Union Government seeking its response on a PIL to regulate OTT Platforms. The Union Government subsequently on November 9 2020, made a notification bringing digital and online media under the ambit of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, thereby giving the Ministry the power to regulate OTT Platforms.

On February 25, 2021, the Union Government notified the much-anticipated Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, bringing various digital entities under its purview and imposing new compliances to regulate them.

 

Objectives of the Digital Media Ethics Code

The rising internet and social media penetration in India raises concerns of transparency, disinformation and misuse of such technologies. The Rules address these concerns and bring accountability to social and digital media platforms by mandating the setting up of a grievance redressal mechanism that adheres to statutory timeframes. The Rules also address the legal lacuna surrounding the regulation of OTT platforms and the content available on them and introduces a three-tier content regulation mechanism.

Key definitions and the applicability of the Digital Media Ethics Code

The Rules add on extensively to the 2011 Intermediary Guidelines and also introduce new terms and definitions. To understand the Rules and the compliances thereunder in a holistic manner, it becomes imperative to learn the key terms and definitions. This also addresses concerns of applicability of the Rules to different entities, as they prescribe different sets of compliances to different categories of entities.

Key definitions:

Digital Media as per Rule 2(1)(i) are digitised content that can be transmitted over the internet or computer networks, including content received, stored, transmitted, edited or processed by

  • an intermediary; or
  • a publisher of news and current affairs content or a publisher of online curated content.

This broadly includes every content available online and every content that can be transmitted over the internet.

Grievance as per Rule 2(1)(j) includes any complaint, whether regarding any content, any duties of an intermediary or publisher under the Act, or other matters pertaining to the computer resource of an intermediary or publisher as the case may be.

Intermediary has not been defined in the Rules, but as per S. 2(1)(w) of the IT Act, intermediary, with respect to any particular electronic record, is any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes.

The first part of the definition lays down that an Intermediary with respect to an electronic record, is any person that receives, stores or transmits that electronic record on behalf of another person.

An entity becomes an intermediary for a particular electronic record if that record is received by, stored in or transmitted through the entity on behalf of a third party. However, as the clause does not use the term “collect” with respect to an electronic record, any data that entities may collect, including IP Addresses, device information, etc., do not fall within the definition’s purview. Hence the entities would not be considered as intermediaries for such data.

Moreover, the second part of the definition lays down that those entities that provide any service with respect to an electronic record would be intermediaries. However, what constitutes “service” has been a key point of discussion in prior cases. In Christian Louboutin Sas v. Nakul Bajaj[2], the Court not only held that the nature of the service offered by an entity would determine whether it falls under the ambit of the definition, but also went on to hold that when the involvement of an entity is more than that of merely an intermediary, i.e., it actively takes part in the use of such record, it might lose safe harbour protection under S. 79 of the Act.

The definition also includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places, and cyber cafes as intermediaries. In Satish N v. State of Karnataka[3], it was held that taxi aggregators like Uber are also intermediaries with respect to the data they store. Therefore, Telecom Service Providers like Airtel, Vi, Jio, etc., Network Service Providers like Reliance Jio, BSNL, MTNL, etc., Internet Service Providers like ACT Fibernet, Hathaway, etc., Search Engines like Google, Bing, etc., Online Payment gateways like Razorpay, Billdesk etc., Online Auction Sites like eBay, eAuction India, etc., Online Market Places like Flipkart, Amazon etc. are all considered intermediaries.

Social Media Intermediaries as per Rule 2(1)(w) is an intermediary which primarily or solely enables online interaction between two or more users and allows them to create, upload, share, disseminate, modify or access information using its services. This includes platforms like Tumblr, Flickr, Diaspora, Ello, etc.

Significant Social Media Intermediaries as per Rule 2(1)(v) is a social media intermediary having number of registered users in India above such threshold as notified by the Central Government. Currently, the threshold is 5 million users. Platforms that fall under this category would be Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Telegram etc.

News & current affairs content as per Rule 2(1)(m) includes newly received or noteworthy content, including analysis, especially about recent events primarily of socio-political, economic or cultural nature, made available over the internet or computer networks, and any digital media shall be news and current affairs content where the context, substance, purpose, import and meaning of such information is in the nature of news and current affairs content. Therefore, news pieces reported by newspapers or news agencies, shared online, on social media, or on digital media platforms are news & current affairs content. This includes contents of such nature created by any person and shared through social media platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter etc. Digital content discussing news and the latest happenings will also come under the purview of this definition.

Newspaper as per Rule 2(1)(n) as a periodical of loosely folded sheets usually printed on newsprint and brought out daily or at least once in a week, containing information on current events, public news or comments on public news. Newspapers like The Hindu, Times of India etc. will fall under this category.

News aggregator as per Rule 2(1)(o) is an entity performing a significant role in determining the news and current affairs content being made available, makes available to users a computer resource that enable such users to access such news and current affairs content which is aggregated, curated and presented by such entity. This includes platforms like Inshorts, Dailyhunt etc.

Online curated content as per Rule 2(1)(1) is any curated catalogue of audio-visual content, other than news and current affairs content, which is owned by, licensed to or contracted to be transmitted by a publisher of online curated content, and made available on demand, including but not limited through subscription, over the internet or computer networks, and includes films, audio visual programmes, documentaries, television programmes, serials, podcasts and other such content. This includes movies and shows available on OTT platforms like Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+Hotstar etc.

Publisher of News and Current Affairs Content as per Rule 2(1)(t) includes online paper, news portal, news aggregator, news agency and such other entities, which publishes news and current affairs. This would include websites/apps such as The Wire, The News Minute, Scroll.in, Dkoding.in, The Print, The Citizen, LiveLaw, Inshorts etc.

While the Rules do not include the regular newspapers or replica e-papers of these newspapers, as they come under the Press Council Act, news websites such as Hindustantimes.com, IndianExpress.com, thehindu.com are covered under the Rules, and the Union Government clarified the same on June 10, 2021. The clarification stated that websites of organisations having traditional newspapers and digital news portals/websites of traditional TV Organisations come under the ambit of the Rules.

This does not include news and current affairs reported or posted by laymen or ordinary citizens online, as the scope is limited only to news publishing agencies.

Publisher of Online Curated Content as per Rule 2(1)(u) is a publisher who performs a significant role in determining the online curated content being made available and enables users’ access to such content via internet or computer networks. Such transmission of online currented content shall be in the course of systematic business or commercial activity. This includes all OTT platforms, including Netflix, Prime Video, Voot, Lionsgate, Disney+Hotstar, etc.

The Digital Media Ethics Code Challenged in Court

Part III of the IT Rules has been challenged by many persons in various High Courts. News platforms including The Wire, The Quint, and AltNews moved to the Delhi High Court, alleging that online news platforms do not fall under the purview of Section 87 of the IT Act, under which these Rules are made as the section is only applicable to intermediaries. Section 69A is also limited to intermediaries and government agencies. It is alleged that since such publishers are not intermediaries, they do not fall under the purview of the IT Rules.

A similar petition was moved by LiveLaw, a legal news reporting website before the Kerala High Court, alleging that the Rules violated Articles 13, 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution and the IT Act.[4] The petitioners contended that the Rules had brought Digital News Media under the purview of the Press Council of India Act and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, without amending either of the two legislations. They also alleged that the rules were undoing the procedural safeguards formed by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal[5] case. In this regard, the Kerala High Court has ordered that no coercive action is to be taken against the petitioner as interim relief.

Recently, the Bombay High Court in Agij Promotion of Nineteenonea v. Union of India[6] delivered an interim order staying Rules 9(1) and 9(3), which provides for publishers’ compliance with the Code of Ethics, and the three tier self-regulation system respectively. The Court found Rule 9(1) prima facie an intrusion of Art. 19(1)(a).

Legality & Enforceability of the Digital Media Ethics Code

Even though six months have passed since the Rules came into force, the legality and enforceability of the Rules are still in question. While most intermediaries, including social media and significant social media intermediaries, have at least partly complied with the Rules, the same cannot be said for publishers of news and current affairs content and online curated content. This will have to wait until the challenges to its legality and constitutionality are settled by Courts.

References:

[1] 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3419.

[2] 2018 (76) PTC 508 (Del).

[3] ILR 2017 KARNATAKA 735.

[4] https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/kerala-high-court-new-it-rules-orders-no-coercive-action-issues-notice-on-livelaws-plea-170983

[5] (2013) 12 SCC 73.

[6] Agij Promotion of Nineteenonea v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION (L.) NO.14172 of 2021.

Image Credits: 

Photo by Jeremy Bezanger on Unsplash

 

Even though six months have passed since the Rules came into force, the legality and enforceability of the Rules are still in question. While most intermediaries, including social media and significant social media intermediaries, have at least partly complied with the Rules, the same cannot be said for publishers of news and current affairs content and online curated content. This will have to wait until the challenges to its legality and constitutionality are settled by Courts.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT