The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is questioning Meta’s status as an “intermediary” under Indian law, with a top ministry official arguing that the company should instead be treated as a service provider, given that its platforms, including Instagram and Facebook, charge for advertisements and use algorithms to determine what content users see.
Such behaviour, the official said on Wednesday, entails greater responsibility for the content allowed on its platforms. “When you charge to show something on your platform, you are no longer neutral,” the official said, adding that platforms that fail to meet the due-diligence requirements under Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act “are no longer an intermediary” and should not receive safe-harbour immunity.
Under the IT Act, an intermediary is a person or entity that receives, stores or transmits electronic records on behalf of others, or provides services related to those records. Section 79 provides intermediaries with “safe harbour” protection from liability for third-party content on their platforms, subject to certain conditions, including compliance with prescribed due-diligence requirements.
The official, however, said whether Meta is entitled to intermediary status and immunity will ultimately be decided by the courts. “It cannot be decided by MeitY or Meta. This will come under the judiciary’s domain and will be an interpretation of the law,” the official said.
{{/usCountry}}The official, however, said whether Meta is entitled to intermediary status and immunity will ultimately be decided by the courts. “It cannot be decided by MeitY or Meta. This will come under the judiciary’s domain and will be an interpretation of the law,” the official said.
{{/usCountry}}Also Read | Meta To Report Child Sexual Abuse Material Directly To Indian Agencies| Instagram, Facebook
Meta did not respond to HT’s queries.
The comments come as Meta faces increased government scrutiny over the handling of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on its platforms. In a recent move, Meta agreed to report CSAM directly to the Cyber Crime portal maintained by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), departing from its earlier policy of reporting it only to the US-based National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).
The official said social media platforms other than Meta will also have to report CSAM and other illegal content to Indian law enforcement agencies. The government also expects platforms to remove content that can contribute to suicide or depression among kids.
The scrutiny intensified after a BBC Eye investigation found that Instagram displayed advertisements in India using phrases such as “rape video” and “child video” that directed users to Telegram channels allegedly selling CSAM.
Meta head appears before child rights panel
Against this backdrop, Meta India Managing Director Arun Srinivas appeared before the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) on Wednesday as part of the child rights body’s inquiry into the allegations in the BBC report.
The 70-minute hearing was led by NCPCR chairperson Valeti Premchand. Senior officials from I4C and MeitY were also present.
Also Read | Meta restricts access in India to viral AI video of Keralam CM dancing with KSEB officials
According to people present at the hearing, Premchand questioned Srinivas on a range of issues, including Meta’s eligibility for safe-harbour protection under the IT Act, why it had not been reporting CSAM cases to Indian law enforcement agencies until now, and its AI labelling and detection tools. One person present said Meta was unable to respond to several questions and sought additional time to provide its responses. The NCPCR has given the company two weeks to submit a report.
Srinivas was accompanied by Meta’s Indian public policy team, including Aman Jain and Natasha Jog. This is the second time Srinivas has been summoned by the NCPCR after he skipped the September 9 hearing.
An official had told HT that the commission wants to hear Meta’s side, examine the arguments in its report that it had submitted previously, and give Srinivas an opportunity to substantiate them with evidence, in keeping with principles of natural justice. Srinivas is known to have deposed under oath, which can subsequently be produced before a court.
The NCPCR had in its notice on July 3 sought an explanation from Meta on why it did not inform the police after allegedly becoming aware of CSAM being promoted on Instagram, citing obligations under the Pocso Act. Section 19 of the Pocso Act requires any person who has knowledge that an offence under the law has been committed, or an apprehension of such an offence, to provide such information to the special juvenile police unit or the local police.