Our search engine is not a social media intermediary – Google ahead of Delhi HC as it seeks shelter from IT rules 2021 – LexForti Legal News & Journal

Google LLC applied to the Delhi High Court for temporary protection against its declaration as a “Social Media Intermediary” (SMI) under the new IT rules.

In the present case, Google LLC preferred to appeal against an order by a single judge that had directed it to remove content that the petitioner identified as objectionable and offensive worldwide. According to her, the content was taken from her social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) and posted on a pornographic website without her consent.

The petitioner claimed that her photos were taken from her accounts despite the privacy settings being activated. Such a crime violated your privacy and was punishable under Section 67 of the IT Act.

The complainant had alleged that, in the case of the petitioner, she had no objections to the court’s orders, but that she was annoyed about the blanket model instructions provided by the bank under the information technology regulations (broker guidelines and digital code of ethics) 2021.

According to the objection, Google was classified as a social media broker according to the new IT rules and instructed to remove a certain post that was marked as such worldwide within 24 hours.

The lawyer alleged that the complainant had applied for protection from coercive measures if she did not dismiss certain positions because she was not an SMI. The lawyer claimed that it was a search engine that does not fall under the definition of SMI under the IT rules.

In addition, the attorney stated that while the content may be offensive under Indian law, it may not be offensive in countries outside of India, so no blanket order to remove the post could be issued.

Finally, the attorney argued that such sample instructions could set a bad precedent. If the petitioner had contacted the complainant, he would have taken care of the matter.

On the basis of these blanket instructions, the complainant had lodged a complaint and applied for temporary protection.

Comments are closed.