Google and Meta contest "super censor" role in Delhi High Court
This story involves professional misconduct allegations. Any claims of wrongdoing described here are allegations, not established facts, unless a court or official body has ruled otherwise. This disclosure does not remove our responsibility for what's published below.
See sources Request a correction Report a serious problem / request takedown Corrections & takedown policy
AI-assisted synthesis, reviewed and approved by the editorial team. Generated , updated since first publication on as new sources were added. Approved by editorial team: .
Tech giants told the Delhi High Court they cannot be required to proactively monitor all user-generated content. The companies argued that as intermediaries, they can only take action when specific items or URLs are identified.
Amalgamated from News18 (opens in new tab), Indian Express (opens in new tab)
Google and Meta informed the Delhi High Court that they cannot be legally expected to function as "super censors" for all material hosted on their platforms. According to reporting from News18, both companies argued that intermediaries are not obligated to proactively monitor user-generated content, but can only act when specific items or URLs are identified.
The Indian Express also reported the tech giants' stance, noting they described it as impossible to monitor billions of individual posts in real time. The core of their legal argument is that they should not be held responsible for failing to detect content unless it is flagged by others.
Both News18 and the Indian Express noted these arguments were presented in response to monitoring mandates. The companies contend their responsibility lies in reacting to specific reports rather than providing a comprehensive, automated overview of all user activity. This distinction between being an intermediary and having a mandate for universal oversight forms the basis of their defense in the High Court.
Why this matters
The outcome will clarify the extent of a platform's legal liability for user-generated content under Indian law. It addresses how much responsibility tech companies must take for monitoring material versus the practical limitations of managing billions of pieces of content.
What's confirmed / what isn't
Both News18 and the Indian Express confirm the core arguments made by Google and Meta regarding their role as intermediaries and their stance on proactive monitoring. There are no conflicting reports from these sources regarding the details of their court testimony.
Background
In India, an "intermediary" is any entity that provides access to another communication system or collection of data. These entities have specific legal protections and obligations under the Information Technology Act.