Meta's copyright system is at the centre of a legal fight in India after two creators alleged that rivals copied their videos, manipulated Facebook's “Edit Post” feature to create a false appearance of prior publication and then used Meta's copyright enforcement process against them.
The Delhi High Court has not yet ruled on the allegations, but its interim orders have put the spotlight on a central problem for the creator economy: what happens when automated copyright safeguards are allegedly misused to establish false claims of ownership?
Mint explains what the litigation means for copyright protection, content ownership and the safeguards used by digital platforms to police infringement.
Why have creators sued Meta?
Social media creators Pushkar Raj Thakur and Neeraj Joshi have filed separate lawsuits against Meta, alleging that individuals repeatedly copied their original videos and used Meta's copyright enforcement process against them.
According to the petitions seen by Mint, the creators first uploaded original videos on Facebook, Instagram or other Meta-owned platforms. The content was then allegedly copied and uploaded to Facebook by other users. The creators allege that the “Edit Post” feature was subsequently used to manipulate the appearance of when the copied post was created, making it appear older than the original upload.
“The manipulated posts created a false and misleading appearance of prior publication and ownership in favour of the said Defendants,” said Joshi's petition.
The “Edit Post” feature allows users to modify a post after it has been published, including correcting text, updating captions or adding information, while retaining the post's original publication date.
Thakur's petition also alleges that some individuals impersonated him, sold courses under his name and collected money from his followers. He alleged that Meta's complaint-driven system can result in genuine creators' videos being removed, copyright strikes accumulating and accounts being suspended. A false copyright strike, the petition alleges, can lead to the removal or disabling of original content.
“... mechanically removes, disables and restricts the Plaintiff's (Pushkar Raj Thakur) original copyrighted works through its automated copyright enforcement systems without meaningful verification of authorship, ownership, metadata, publication chronology or legitimacy of the underlying claims." said Pushkar in his petition.
The creators' core allegation is that a system designed to protect copyright owners is being weaponized against them.
Delhi HC has ordered protection—not a final ruling
The Delhi High Court has not delivered a final judgment in either case. Instead, it has granted interim protection and ordered steps to preserve evidence while the allegations are investigated.
In Joshi's case, Justice Jyoti Singh directed Meta to investigate the allegations and preserve his Instagram username. The court also directed Meta to provide Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) and IP logs, which can help identify account holders, trace where uploads originated, examine login history and determine whether multiple accounts are linked or controlled by the same person.
Meta was directed to take these steps within three weeks of the 9 July order. “... Defendant No. 2 (Meta) shall carry out necessary investigation into the allegations made in the plaint and also preserve Plaintiff’s (Neeraj Joshi) Verified Instagram Account…” the order copy seen by Mint said.
In Thakur's case, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani passed an order on 1 July. Meta assured the court that it would not take down his videos on the basis of copyright strikes or disable his account because of repeated copyright complaints until the next hearing.
After receiving the relevant URLs, Meta also agreed to restore videos that had already been removed. “Mr. Pathak (counsel appearing for Meta) further assures the court, that subject to the plaintiff furnishing to defendant No.2 (Meta) the concerned URLs, defendant No.2 would also ensure that the plaintiff’s deleted videos are restored.” said the order copy seen by Mint.
Thakur's case was listed before the Delhi High Court today but was adjourned. Joshi's case is scheduled to be heard on 5 August.
In Thakur's case, Meta has assured that it will not remove his content or disable his account, and added that videos removed earlier have been restored. In Joshi's case, Meta has been directed to investigate his allegations, preserve his verified Instagram account and provide Basic Subscriber Information and IP logs before the next hearing.
How can “Edit Post” affect creators?
Facebook's “Edit Post” feature allows users to modify content after publication. The creators allege that it is being used to create misleading evidence in copyright disputes.
According to the lawsuits, users allegedly upload copied content and later edit the post to create the appearance that it existed before the original upload.
That can matter because copyright enforcement on large digital platforms often relies on automated or expedited systems. The creators argue that a wrongful complaint can therefore trigger the immediate removal of a video, disrupting audience engagement and potentially affecting monetization.
The dispute also comes as Meta faces copyright litigation in other markets.
According to a New York Times story published in May, publishers including Elsevier Inc., Cengage Learning Inc., Macmillan Publishing Group and McGraw Hill have filed a class-action lawsuit against Meta and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The publishers allege that Meta illegally copied millions of copyrighted books and journal articles from pirate websites to train its Llama AI models without permission or payment.
What could the cases mean for creators?
The stakes are rising as India's creator economy expands. According to the India Influencer Marketing Report 2025 by The Goat Agency and Kantar, the sector grew nearly 25% to ₹4,500 crore from ₹3,600 crore in 2024.
The legal question is whether Meta can be held responsible if its tools and enforcement systems are allegedly used to generate false copyright claims.
According to Rohit Jain, managing partner at Singhania & Co., liability could arise if evidence shows Meta knew about the alleged manipulation, materially contributed to it or continued automated takedowns despite receiving credible notice of misuse. “An enabling feature alone does not automatically create liability,” Jain added.
Rahul Hingmire, managing partner at Vis Legis Law Practice, said the high court could also require Meta to strengthen the technological and procedural safeguards built into its platform.
“Technology companies should proactively strengthen their systems instead of waiting for judicial intervention to mandate these changes,” he said.
For creators, the cases raise a basic question: can a platform that automates copyright enforcement also be expected to verify who owns the content before penalising the person who created it?