Delhi High Court Issues Summons In Suit Over Meta's 'Edit Post' Loophole Used To Steal Content & For Fake Copyright Strikes

The Delhi High Court will hear a commercial suit highlighting the vulnerabilities of automated copyright enforcement against Meta Platforms Inc., Google LLC, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).

A suit was filed by financial educator and entrepreneur Pushkar Raj Thakur, alleging that bad-faith actors executed a highly sophisticated fraud by weaponizing Meta's "Rights Manager" system—using Facebook's desktop "Edit Post" functionality to swap old media with Thakur's newly published reels, thereby creating backdated timestamps to trigger automated copyright strikes.

On May 29, the High Court registered the plaint and issued a formal summons. Meta requested the Court to give time to conduct an internal investigation to ascertain why the original content creator was being systematically de-platformed by backdated counter-strikes.

Subsequently, on the next date of hearing, to mitigate immediate commercial injury, Meta Platforms Inc. extended formal undertakings to the Court, assuring that the creator’s accounts would remain secure and that his wrongfully removed content would be systematically restored.

The Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted, "...learned counsel is present on behalf of defendant No.2. He submits, that defendant No.2 is ready and willing to cooperate with the plaintiff in preventing unlawful taking down of the plaintiff’s videos. Mr. Pathak assures the court that the plaintiff’s videos will not be taken down on grounds of copyright strikes till the next date of hearing; and that the plaintiff’s account will also not be closed by reason of alleged repeated copyright strikes. Mr. Pathak further assures the court, that subject to the plaintiff furnishing to defendant No.2 the concerned URLs, defendant No.2 would also ensure that the plaintiff’s deleted videos are restored. The assurances given by defendant No.2 are noted."

Advocate Himanshu Goyal appeared for the Plaintiff, while Advocate Varun Pathak appeared for Meta.

The Plaintiff instituted a commercial suit in the High Court of Delhi in May 2026. The Plaintiff asserted exclusive statutory and proprietary rights over his original content and the registered trademark "PUSHKAR RAJ THAKUR". The suit was filed against several unknown persons, social media intermediaries Meta Platforms and Google LLC, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, various specific infringing entities, and Telegram FZ LLC.

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants executed a highly manipulative and fraudulent scheme to weaponize Meta’s "Rights Manager" system against him. The “Rights Manager” operated by Meta is an automated copyright enforcement system used across Facebook and Instagram. The said system allows users claiming ownership over content to upload reference files such as videos, audio and images, based on which Meta’s systems automatically scan and identify allegedly matching content across its platforms.

The infringing entities initially uploaded unrelated or arbitrary media onto obscure Facebook pages. Immediately after the Plaintiff published his original reels and educational videos on Instagram, the defendants downloaded his content. They subsequently utilized the "Edit Post" functionality available on the desktop version of Facebook to swap their old media with the Plaintiff’s newly stolen content. It was stated that the said mechanism is not available on the mobile application to the extent that on the mobile application, one cannot remove/delete the earlier uploaded unrelated material.

Because the Facebook system preserved the original publication timestamp despite the comprehensive swap, the manipulated posts falsely projected an appearance of prior publication and ownership in favor of the infringers. Relying on these backdated posts, the infringing entities raised false copyright ownership claims. Meta's automated algorithms mechanically processed these fraudulent claims and instituted wrongful copyright strikes, which led to the global takedown of at least 36 original videos belonging to the Plaintiff.

The Plea averred, "That the Plaintiff submits that the said accounts/pages maintained by Defendant No. 1 fraudulently manipulated the publication chronology and falsely projected themselves as prior owners and first publishers of the Plaintiff's original works, and thereafter proceeded to initiate false copyright strikes, takedown requests and enforcement actions against the Plaintiff's own actual videos, thus prompting the Defendant No. 2’s automated copyright enforcement systems, with the mala fide intention of harassing & blackmailing the Plaintiff in addition to causing harm to his reputation."

The Plaintiff asserted that Meta acted negligently and arbitrarily by implementing automated enforcement actions without human verification, metadata checks, or prior hearings. Paradoxically, while the automated system empowered infringers, Meta flatly rejected the Plaintiff’s formal application to access the "Rights Manager" tool to protect its own brand.

The plaintiff submitted, "Thus, Defendant No. 2 has actual and constructive knowledge that its copyright reporting and enforcement mechanisms are vulnerable to abuse, manipulation and false ownership claims. Despite such knowledge, Defendant No. 2 has failed to implement adequate technological safeguards, timestamp integrity protections, metadata verification systems, anti-manipulation protocols, source-authentication mechanisms and meaningful human review procedures capable of protecting genuine copyright owners from fraudulent takedown campaigns and fabricated claims of prior publication. Instead, Defendant No. 2 continues to place excessive reliance upon automated moderation and complaint processing systems, which are incapable of effectively distinguishing genuine copyright owners from fraudulent claimants."

Furthermore, the Plaintiff pointed out that the same videos taken down by Meta continued to exist lawfully on YouTube, proving the flawed nature of Meta's enforcement architecture. The Plaintiff also highlighted that this loophole was a recognized industry-wide issue previously flagged by media outlets like Mashable.

Simultaneously, various persons are engaged in trademark infringement and consumer fraud by running multiple unauthorized, impersonating channels and automated bots across Telegram and YouTube. These fake handles used the Plaintiff's name and brand identity to dupe and extort money from unsuspecting followers under the guise of financial investments.

The Plaint said, "However, by permitting third parties to unlawfully re-upload, backdate and falsely claim ownership over the Plaintiff’s original works, Defendant No. 2’s defective systems have enabled infringing actors to unlawfully appropriate, dilute and interfere with the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, including the Plaintiff's right to reproduce, publish, communicate and commercially exploit the said works."

The Plaintiff stated that these combined illegal activities severely throttled his algorithmic visibility, damaged his subscriber engagement, suspended brand collaborations, and diluted his market reputation. He expressed a valid apprehension that his primary social media accounts could be permanently disabled under repeat-infringer policies.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought permanent and mandatory injunctions to restrain the defendants from further copyright and trademark infringement, dynamic injunctions to block the listed fraudulent URLs/handles, and immediate restoration of his wrongfully removed content.

At the preliminary stage, the Plaintiff notionally estimated and claimed monetary damages to the tune of INR 2,00,20,000/− for the severe financial and reputational losses he sustained.

Cause Title: Pushkar Raj Thakur v. John Doe and Ors. [CS(COMM) 647/2026]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Himanshu Goyal and Muskan Garg.

Respondents: Advocate Varun Pathak, Advocate Vishesh Sharma, Advocate Prasidhi Agarwal, Advocate Rohan Ahuja, Advocate Shruttima Ehersa, Advocate Aiswarya Debadarshini, Advocate Madhav Khosla.

Click here to read/download the Order