BackParle case against social media sites to be heard on Wednesday
Parle has accused Facebook, Twitter and Google of promoting a statement, posted by a user in March, alleging its mango beverage Frooti was contaminated
Premium(Hindustan Times)
Mumbai: Consumer goods company Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd has filed a case against social networking sites Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and online search company Google Inc. for a user post that went viral in cyberspace and allegedly harmed its reputation.
The case, which was filed by Parle Agro on 26 June, to obtain an injunction against the three companies, came up for hearing in the Bombay high court on Friday. On 16 July, the court gave interim relief to Parle. It will now hear the case on 21 August, according to the court’s website.
Parle Agro accused the social networking sites and online search engine of promoting the “defamatory" statement, posted by a user in March, which alleged its mango beverage Frooti was “contaminated".
The message (posted as an image), reviewed by Mint from the court papers, said, “Important msg (sic) from Delhi police to all over India: For the next few weeks, do not drink any product of Frooti, as a worker from the company has added his blood contaminated with AIDS (acquired immuno deficiency syndrome)...Please forward this message urgently to people you care, share it as much as u can".
This image file also carried a picture of the product. Within a few hours, the message went viral and was shared by over 55,000 users across social networking sites, according to a person familiar with the development who did not want to be named.
Top legal firms are representing the parties involved. While Facebook has hired AZB & Partners, one of the top three corporate legal firms in India, M Mulla Associates is representing Twitter and Parle Agro is being represented by Khaitan & Co.
Parle Agro did not comment on the case as the matter is in court. “I have been advised by my legal team to refrain from commenting on the same," said Nadia Chauhan Kurup, joint managing director and chief marketing officer, Parle Agro.
To be sure, summer is an important season for the beverage industry. This is also the first time that Parle Agro got on board a celebrity brand ambassador Shah Rukh Khan for the 28-year-old Frooti brand, spending ₹ 40 crore on the campaign or 40% over the year-ago budget for the same period.
“Over 60-65% of the beverage industry sales is generated during summer. The same applies to our beverage brands," said Kurup. The effort to boost sales may have been impacted by such comments as the brand’s page on Facebook has put out a clarification regarding the defamatory statement and urging Frooti fans not to believe the rumours and continue enjoying the drink.
In its response to the high court, Facebook said while it has a filtering mechanism for preventing obscene and criminal posts, it is impossible for it to physically monitor all posts and chats since it is just an intermediary.
Social media networking site, micro-blogging sites and online search engines are defined as intermediaries under the Information Technology (IT) Act 2008 (Amendment), and can be held responsible for “defamatory" or “objectionable" user posts only if they fail to remove such posts within 36 hours of receiving a complaint.
Google, on its part, has blocked specific URLs (website addresses) that were listed by the Parle Agro in its petition. These URLs will not appear on its search results. Facebook, too, on 24 July blocked the allegedly defamatory post.
“We are not able to comment on the specifics as the case is sub-judice," said a Facebook spokesperson in an email response to Mint queries.
A Google spokesperson in an email reply said, “Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. It’s important to bear in mind that search engines do not have the ability to remove content directly from the Internet, so removing content from Google or another search engine would still leave the original content that exists on the Web. Where content is illegal or breaks our terms of service we will continue to remove it, once notified."
An email query sent to Twitter remained unanswered.
According to Na Vijayashankar, a cyberlaw expert, intermediaries cannot be held responsible for any user-generated defamatory content.
“The filtering mechanism of a social networking site can filter specific words but cannot make meaning out of defamatory messages. Had the content been obscene then under Section 79 of the IT Act Facebook, Twitter and Google would have been responsible and liable for punishment. Similarly had they (social networking sites) refused to provide the identify of a user or give the IP (Internet Protocol) address of a user to the complainant they could have been charged under norms."
Anuradha Salhotra, a Delhi-based lawyer, said it is difficult to hold social media responsible for defamation as by law they are just intermediaries.
“The law has enough safeguards to help protect brands, celebrities and politically sensitive people from defamation. I think we (Indians) are very sensitive about social media. Overdoing the catching hold of social media won’t help eradicate crime," she said.
This is not the first time when social networking sites or search engines have been in trouble over “defamatory" user posts.
In January 2012, Facebook was slapped with a legal notice by Media Content and Communications Services India Pvt. Ltd (MCCS), which runs the Star News channel, following which the social networking site had to delete some allegedly defamatory content posted against the media house on a forum called “Fight against corruption in media".
In December 2011, minister for communications and information technology (IT) Kapil Sibal said in New Delhi that the Centre had no option but to “evolve guidelines" to ensure that “blasphemous content on the Internet or television is not allowed", since Internet and social networking sites such as Google, Microsoft Corp., Twitter, Yahoo Inc., and Facebook failed “to respond to and cooperate with" the government’s request to keep “objectionable" content off their sites.
The move followed posts about some senior Congress leaders, including party president Sonia Gandhi.
However, a few days later, Sibal clarified that “...this government (of the United Progressive Alliance) does not believe in censorship".
According to Google Transparency Report, 2012, the online search company received inquiries from 20 countries (including India regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, “Innocence of Muslims".
During the period of disturbance in the North-East region, Google received five requests from the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) to remove content from Google+, a Blogger blog, 64 YouTube videos, and 1,759 comments associated with some YouTube videos, that cited laws covering disruption of public order or ethnic offence laws.
According to Twitter’s transparency report (1 January-30 June 2013), “governments generally make removal requests for content that may be illegal in their respective jurisdictions". In India, Twitter received two removal requests, one following a court order and another from a government agency involving 10 user accounts.
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
