The Delhi High Court pulled up Meta and Google in Kumar Sanu’s personality rights case, questioning their failure to remove fake and morphed videos that misuse the singer’s image and reputation across social media platforms.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday heard a petition filed by singer Kumar Sanu, who has sought protection of his personality rights against the misuse of his name and image on online platforms, particularly Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Google.
Background
Kumar Sanu, a household name in Indian music, approached the court seeking to restrain various online entities from circulating morphed or misleading content using his likeness. His plea highlights the growing concern among celebrities about digital impersonation and misuse of their persona on social media platforms.
What Happened in Court
During the hearing, the Delhi High Court asked Sanu’s counsel to coordinate with the advocates representing Meta and Google, noting that the matter would be taken up later in the day between 1:30 PM and 2:30 PM.
Meta’s counsel informed the Court that the URLs in question had already been shared with the plaintiff’s legal team.
“I have shared the profile URLs with the plaintiff,”
said the counsel appearing for Meta.
Representing Sanu, his counsel emphasized the singer’s stature and the potential reputational harm caused by fake or morphed content.
“The plaintiff is a renowned singer,”
he told the Court.
Justice J Pritam, presiding over the case, scrutinized the pleadings, remarking,
“Let’s examine the reliefs sought against the defendants—show me the cause of action against them.”
The Court also sought clarity on the nature of the URLs, asking pointedly,
“What exactly are these URLs doing? You’ll need to clarify.”
Sanu’s counsel explained that the plaint identified certain morphed URLs being circulated online. The Court observed,
“All these appear to be morphed. What about defendant 7?”
Meta’s counsel responded that four URLs had been identified, each linked to specific posts, and suggested that the plaintiff categorize the infringing content as had been done in a previous, similar case.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s counsel walked the Court through the allegedly infringing material shared by the defendants, underlining the misuse of Kumar Sanu’s image and name.
Court’s Directions
After hearing both sides, the Court noted that counsel for defendants 6, 7, and 20 (which include Meta and Google) had appeared. Counsel for defendant 20 (Google) stated that the reliefs sought could be addressed by Google and Meta, subject to review.
Google’s counsel also informed the bench that the plaintiff had provided a list of URLs and requested time to examine them.
Advocate Varun Pathak, appearing for Meta, assured the Court that the URLs listed by the plaintiff would be reviewed and clarified that two specific social media accounts had previously been identified for takedown of problematic URLs.
In its interim direction, the High Court instructed both Meta and Google to obtain instructions on whether the disputed URLs contained morphed videos or profane content, and to explain why such material cannot be removed by their respective Grievance Officers.
“Meta and Google shall clarify whether the disputed URLs host morphed or profane content and provide reasons, if any, for non-removal through their Grievance Officers,”
directed the Court.