Meta Apologises, Govt Warns on Safe Harbour

Can govt legally strip Meta of safe harbour?

Under Section 79 of the IT Act, safe harbour is a conditional defence, not automatic immunity. It applies only if a platform meets due-diligence rules and acts as a neutral intermediary. Courts have held that active curation can strip this protection, so government or judicial action, not a unilateral order, would need to establish Meta's status.

What makes a platform 'active' vs 'neutral'?

Delhi HC's Louboutin ruling said factors like curating listings, quality checks, packaging, and advertising make a platform an 'active participant', losing safe harbour, while a later ruling (Amazon case) held such value-added services alone don't automatically remove protection.

Is losing safe harbour automatic or must it?

Delhi HC has said Section 79 'is neither an enforcement provision nor lists penal consequences'; it sets minimum standards as an affirmative defence, not blanket immunity, meaning compliance or its absence is typically established through litigation, not a government declaration alone.

Does 'actual knowledge' of illegal content matter?

The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal ruled intermediaries lose immunity only if they fail to act after 'actual knowledge', meaning a court order or government notification, not general awareness, raising questions about advisories demanding proactive automated filtering.

What did the parliamentary panel's ultimatum?

A Parliamentary Standing Committee wrote to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg demanding an apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's July 23 Facebook post, warning that his protection and immunity could be withdrawn if no apology came within three days.

What did Zuckerberg apologise for beyond the post?

Government sources say Zuckerberg apologised for CSAM, deepfake content and platform operational errors, admitted illegal content was promoted, and that Meta had been paid to boost certain content types. Meta was also told it would be summoned again for further discussions.

How much was paid to boost illegal content?

Government sources said Meta admitted "a lot of money was paid for boosting a certain type of content" and that substantial amounts were spent promoting illegal material through paid promotions targeted at specific audiences, but did not disclose an exact figure.

What triggered the CSAM ad probe?

MeitY issued a stern notice after Instagram carried paid ads promoting Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material, ordering the platform to disable such ads and content and demanding a detailed explanation within a deadline; Meta's reply was received and is under examination.

How were such ads reportedly sold?

A BBC Eye documentary found hidden web-linked phrases like 'child video' or 'rape video' embedded in ads, directing viewers to offsite Telegram channels where child sexual assault content was allegedly sold for as little as 99 rupees, despite user complaints.