Does YouTube’s standard counter-notification clause take news videos made in India to a California court? The Delhi High Court has, prima facie, said no, granting a TV Today Anti-Suit Injunction against a US weather-footage company and five US residents.
New Delhi: Finding the US proceedings prima facie vexatious and oppressive because the videos were prepared and published in India for Indian audiences, the Delhi High Court has restrained Global Weather Productions LLC and five US-based individuals from proceeding with a copyright infringement suit against T.V. Today Network Limited, which runs Aaj Tak and India Today, before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California [T.V. Today Network Limited v. Global Weather Productions LLC & Ors.].
Justice Tejas Karia allowed the broadcaster’s interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on November 5, 2026. The restraint will operate until the final disposal of the suit.
The directions
Until the suit is decided, Global Weather Productions and the five individual defendants, with their agents and representatives, are restrained from proceeding with Case No. 3:26-cv-02367-KAW in California, and from instituting any suit or proceeding before any court or authority outside India on the issues in the Delhi suit. The broadcaster was directed to email the order to them at once. The Court stated that its observations are prima facie and express no final opinion on the merits. The suit is listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on February 9, 2027.
How the dispute arose
Between 2022 and 2025, TV Today published YouTube news reports on weather events and natural disasters outside India. The reports were scripted, edited and uploaded from India and carried the channel’s own narration, commentary and graphics.
Around March 5, 2026, copyright complaints lodged with YouTube at the instance of Global Weather Productions and five US residents, who claim ownership of recordings of storms, tornadoes, floods and snowfall, led YouTube to disable access to several videos. TV Today filed counter-notifications to restore them. YouTube’s standard procedure required a declaration under Section 512 of Title 17 of the United States Code, including a jurisdiction clause.
On March 18, 2026, the US claimants sued TV Today and a former employee in California over 42 taken-down videos, alleging copyright infringement and removal of copyright management information. They relied on the channel’s use of YouTube and the counter-notifications to found US jurisdiction. Summons reached TV Today on May 26, 2026 through the Ministry of Law and Justice under the Hague Service Convention, and a settlement and licensing offer was declined on June 12, 2026.
What TV Today argued
Senior Advocates Gopal Jain and Hrishikesh Baruah submitted that the counter-notification consent was confined to takedown and restoration, and that the jurisdiction clause was a non-negotiable condition imposed by YouTube, not an agreement between the parties. All the acts complained of occurred in India, the broadcaster has no office in California, and copyright subsistence and the Section 52 exceptions are governed by the Copyright Act, 1957.
They argued that the clips showed natural events in which no copyright subsists, appeared only for a few seconds in news programmes, and amounted to fair dealing for reporting current events under Section 52(1)(a)(iii), relying on Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v. Google LLC (2026) and the de minimis principle in India TV Independent News Service v. Yashraj Films (2012). They cited ONGC v. Western Company of North America (1987) and HT Media Limited v. Brainlink International (2020) on restraining oppressive foreign proceedings, and said the US suit was listed on November 6, 2026, when an adverse order could be passed.
Prayer (C), which sought a stay of the declaration given in favour of YouTube, was not pressed, so no relief survived against YouTube. The former employee was impleaded only as a proforma defendant. The US claimants were served but did not appear or file a reply.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court found the US claimants prima facie amenable to its jurisdiction, since the videos were conceived, edited and uploaded from India and the takedowns caused harm within its territory. Applying ONGC and Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket (2003), it said the anti-suit power must be used sparingly and with respect for the foreign court, but is warranted where refusing it would be unjust.
On the YouTube jurisdiction clause, the Court held:
“Prima facie, that clause was Defendant No. 7’s standard-form condition for contesting takedowns, not a negotiated forum choice between the parties. It cannot alone shift the forum of a dispute arising entirely from acts in India.”
It added that continuing the US suit would subject the broadcaster’s conduct in India to foreign law while the same issue awaits adjudication in Delhi, creating a real risk of conflicting decisions.
On merits, the Court found a prima facie case, noting that brief, segmented extracts of natural events within news narration fall within Section 52(1)(a)(iii) and the de minimis principle, and that these averments stood uncontroverted. It concluded:
“The US Suit is, prima facie, vexatious and oppressive: the Plaintiff has no US business, and the Subject Videos were prepared and published in India for Indian audiences.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Narrows Rana Kapoor Book Injunction To Four Passages
Why the order matters
Indian news channels routinely face takedowns and foreign lawsuits from overseas footage licensors. The order signals that agreeing to a platform’s standard counter-notification terms does not, by itself, hand jurisdiction to a foreign court where the content was made and published in India for Indian viewers.
It also builds on the line of Delhi High Court rulings treating short clips of weather events in news reports as fair dealing and de minimis use. Together with the ONGC and Modi Entertainment tests, it gives broadcasters a route to keep such disputes before Indian courts under Indian copyright law.
Case Title: T.V. Today Network Limited v. Global Weather Productions LLC & Ors. [CS(COMM) 738/2026, IA No. 18139/2026]
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: November 5, 2026
For the Plaintiff: Senior Advocates Gopal Jain and Hrishikesh Baruah with Advocates Shahrukh Ejaz, Utkarsh Dwivedi, Ganiul Hakim, Pragya Agarwal, Nishtha Sachan and Pratham Pandey
For Defendant No. 7: Advocates Aditya Gupta, Aishwarya Kane, Rohith Venkatesan and Sunidhi Agrahari; For Defendant No. 8: Advocate Chandrika Gupta