The Delhi High Court has issued notices to the Centre and Meta Platforms Inc. regarding allegations of organized cyber-extortion rackets exploiting Instagram's copyright enforcement mechanisms. According to latest reports, the court has directed Meta to furnish subscriber information and IP logs relating to people alleged to have misused its copyright reporting system to extort digital content creator Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh. The court issued a notice on Shaikh's application seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction and directed Meta's counsel to obtain instructions and, if necessary, file a brief affidavit on the current status of the plaintiff's Instagram account before the next date. The court also directed Meta to furnish Shaikh's counsel with basic subscriber information and IP logs relating to persons identified as defendant nos. 4 to 9 within two weeks, stating the information would enable the plaintiff to take further legal action against them. The matter has been listed next on July 29, 2026.
The petition alleges that cybercriminals manipulate Instagram's copyright reporting process by editing their older posts to incorporate content originally created by others and then claiming copyright infringement against genuine creators. As reported by Bar and Bench, the allegations point to a broader concern involving cybercrime and digital extortion. Since March 2026, an unknown entity acting through fabricated identities had allegedly misused Meta's copyright reporting architecture by lodging false copyright complaints against the plaintiff's original works. According to the latest reports, the plaintiff was able to recover his account only after giving in to extortion demands allegedly made by defendant no. 1, and the account was suspended a second time in June 2026 following fresh copyright complaints made by the same entity through another defendant. During this period, the plaintiff was introduced to a person who claimed he could restore the account.
The latest PIL reveals that the alleged racket involves anonymous entities, bot-operated accounts and fraudulent complainants filing fake copyright infringement complaints against digital content creators. According to the petition, the complaints allegedly trigger Instagram's automated enforcement system, leading to accounts being disabled without any independent verification, human review or prior notice to the affected users. The latest case involves email communications showing that the persons involved, after making fake copyright strikes, had allegedly blackmailed and extorted money from the plaintiff to restore his account. Shaikh also pointed out that Meta's own stand was that no copyright complaint was pending against his Instagram account despite this, the account remained suspended pending an internal review for about a month and a half, leaving him unable to carry on his occupation. The petition traces its genesis to incidents involving various content creators, with the latest case specifically involving a widely recognised digital content creator and educator who publishes original content on AI commentary and personal branding guidance on Instagram.
The PIL seeks the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged racket, restoration of accounts suspended without human review, mandatory human verification before permanent action is taken on copyright complaints, disclosure of complainants' identities, and a fast-track grievance mechanism for complaints involving extortion or fraud. According to Bar and Bench, the petition also challenges provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, contending that they allow accounts to be disabled without prior notice. The petition contends that the copyright enforcement mechanism, as presently structured, is "manifestly arbitrary, contrary to procedural fairness and incompatible with the rule of law," arguing that it violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner specifically claims that disabling entire accounts based on unverified or fraudulent copyright complaints effectively silences a creator's voice and amounts to a de facto restriction on free expression. The scope of relief sought by petitioner Nitin Joshi is comprehensive, addressing both immediate fallout and systemic issues, including mandatory human review requirement before any permanent account action and implementation of a fast-track grievance mechanism specifically tailored to handle cases involving documented instances of extortion or fraud.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, questioned the maintainability of the PIL, arguing that the IT Rules already provide a statutory grievance redress mechanism. As reported by Bar and Bench, Datar submitted that the petitioner should first approach the platform's grievance officer, and when the Court asked whether the issues raised by the petitioner could be addressed by the grievance officer, Datar replied in the affirmative. He maintained that the petitioner's grievance related to misuse of the platform by third parties rather than any defect in Meta's copyright enforcement system, stating that rogue individuals could exploit any mechanism and that Meta already had procedures to address such complaints. Advocate Tejbir Singh, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the challenge was aimed at organised cyberextortion exploiting Meta's processes rather than the copyright enforcement mechanism itself. Meta's counsel Varun Pathak acknowledged that automated copyright tools were not flawless, stating: "Under the IT Rules we have automated tools to protect copyrights. It is not a perfect mechanism." He added that "only 5-7 cases have come to the court" and that bad actors have access and are negotiating with them, noting that the difficulty lies in that they don't invoke the grievance mechanism. The implications for the legal and digital community are profound, as this case could necessitate a paradigm shift in how platforms manage copyright enforcement, potentially moving away from purely machine-led moderation toward a hybrid model that prioritizes human oversight.
