"Action Compliant With IT Rules": Google To Andhra Pradesh HC On Blocking String Art's YouTube Account Allegedly Over Video Against Bill Gates

It was contended that the petitioner-company posted a video titled "Bill Gates Exposed-Rockefeller Funds Fertility Vaccine Scam I#BirthControl” on YouTube, following which its accounts were suspended and eventually terminated, without any prior notice.

It was brought to the notice of the Court that an appeal/complaint was filed before the grievance redressal cell and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting but due to the lack of a fruitful outcome, the petitioner was compelled to approach the Court.

Previously, Justice B. Krishna Mohan had directed the respondents to file their reply.

Google LLC, the owner of the platform, filed a counter on 15^th of this month, challenging the very maintainability of the suit. It submitted that a petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private company and that the petitioner is bound by the jurisdiction as established 'terms and conditions' that a user agrees to at the time of signing up.

Google contended that it is merely an 'intermediary' and is protected against liability as per section 79 of the IT Act, for information made available on its platform by third parties; however, Rule 2 (1) (v) of the IT Rules, 2021 mandate 'Significant Social Media Intermediaries' to observe additional due diligence. It was brought to the notice of the Court that YouTube was one of the first SSMIs to report compliance with the IT Rules.

Google further said that a simple reading of the 'Youtube Terms of Service', 'Google's Privacy Policy' and 'YouTube Community Guidelines' would make clear that YouTube had adopted a 'strike policy' to deal with violators but had also introduced a 'circumvention policy' as per which, the connected accounts of a repeated/serious violator will be terminated to deter the violator from uploading the same content from another account/channel.

It was argued that the guidelines conform with the IT Rules inasmuch as Rule (3)(b) places a primary responsibility on the 'user/uploader' to adhere to the prevailing laws, terms & conditions, etc.

“Therefore, the intermediary is well within its right to terminate content/accounts of users that appear to violate the dos and don'ts of Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules, 2021, which are also part of its platform policies. More importantly, Rule 3(1)(c) of the IT Rules, 2021 which enjoins intermediaries such as the Answering Respondent to periodically inform users that in case of non-compliance with rules and regulations, privacy policy or user agreement, the intermediary has the right to terminate or curtail access or usage rights of the users, as well as remove non-compliant information.”

Lastly, it was stated that YouTube had followed the procedure laid down under Rules 4(8) for the termination of the account and that a mode to appeal against the decision was also provided for.

It was also stated that the dispute is purely contractual and could not be resolved without fact-finding, which would not be possible under writ jurisdiction.

Thus, it was prayed that the writ be dismissed with a heavy cost.

Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, before who the matter was placed on the last date of hearing, permitted the petitioner to file a reply to the counter.

Thus, the matter was posted to July 29.

Case no.: WP 9577 of 2024

Case title: M/S String Pvt Lmt vs. Alphabet Inc.

Counsel for petitioner: Murthy Nagendra Sagar Babu, Shashank Jha

Counsel for respondents: Shireen Sethna Baria