Court allows intermediaries to act on identical infringing URLs on a pro tem basis after verification, but says similar content can be removed only under platform policies and IT law safeguards.
The Delhi High Court has modified an earlier interim order in a case involving alleged infringement of copyright, personality rights and publicity rights through deepfake and impersonated online content, drawing a clear line between “identical” and “similar” material circulating on social media and other online platforms.
Justice A.J. Bhambhani was hearing applications filed by Google LLC seeking limited vacation of a prior takedown direction, and a joint application filed by the plaintiff and Google seeking disposal of the matter on agreed terms. The dispute arose from an order dated February 24, 2026, which had directed Google, Meta Platforms and X (formerly Twitter) to take down not only the infringing content specifically identified in the suit, but also any “similar” content violating the plaintiff’s rights.
Google and Meta argued that such a broad direction conflicted with the safe harbour protection available to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and by the Delhi High Court in Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. They contended that intermediaries cannot be compelled to remove content without actual knowledge through a specific court order, unless the content violates the platform’s own policies.
The plaintiff, however, submitted that requiring a fresh court approach every time a similar post, URL, account or handle appeared would make the injunction ineffective and would allow repeated circulation of infringing material.
After hearing all sides, the Court relied on its earlier ruling in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to and revised the operative part of the February 24 order. The modified directions now permit the plaintiff to notify intermediaries by affidavit if it discovers URLs, posts, accounts or handles carrying content identical to the infringing material in the suit. The intermediary must then technically verify whether the content is indeed identical. If it is, the platform may enforce the injunction as a pro tem measure, while the plaintiff simultaneously moves the court to implead those additional URLs or accounts and seek extension of the injunction.
For content that is only similar, the Court held that intermediaries cannot automatically remove it merely on the basis of the injunction order. In such cases, the plaintiff may still inform the intermediary by affidavit, but takedown can occur only if the material is found to violate the intermediary’s own policies or guidelines framed under the IT Act and the 2021 Intermediary Rules.
The Court also directed Google, Meta and X to disclose available Basic Subscriber Information relating to blocked, removed or disabled infringing URLs, posts, accounts and handles uploaded from IP addresses located within India. This includes names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses and associated identifiers, to be shared in password-protected files within three weeks. However, for any additional identical URLs covered by the modified takedown mechanism, subscriber information may be disclosed only on specific directions of the Court.
With these modifications, the Court disposed of the pending applications and directed that the main suit be listed before the Joint Registrar on October 29, 2026.
Bottom Line :
Intermediary liability and online infringement - In a personality rights, publicity rights and copyright action concerning deepfake/impersonated content, court modified takedown directions to distinguish between "identical" and "similar" infringing content - Identical content may be acted upon by intermediary as a pro tem measure upon plaintiff's affidavit and technical verification, subject to plaintiff seeking extension of injunction from court - Similar content cannot be removed merely on basis of injunction order and may be taken down by intermediary only in accordance with its own policy/guidelines under the IT Act and Rules - Basic Subscriber Information for blocked/removed content directed to be disclosed, but for additional identical URLs only upon specific court directions.
Statutory provision(s): Section 79, Information Technology Act, 2000; Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021; Order XXXIX Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Dr Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi v. John Does Ashok Kumars, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987682
