The Delhi High Court has instructed Meta Platforms Inc. to disclose the specific material that formed the basis for its decision to disable the Instagram account of a stock market advisor and impose restrictions on her associated social media profiles. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, presiding over the matter, issued this direction during the hearing of a suit initiated by Aakanksha Gupta, a professional stock market advisor and analyst.
Ms. Gupta, a SEBI-registered research analyst, informed the Court that she operates various social media accounts across platforms including Instagram, Facebook, X, and Telegram. She contended that one of her Instagram accounts had been disabled, while three other Instagram and Facebook accounts had been subjected to 'strikes' or restrictions. The plaintiff asserted that the reasons provided for these actions were 'not entirely discernible' and 'cryptic,' leading to a severe impact on her business as a stock market advisor and analyst.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Diya Kapoor, representing Ms. Gupta alongside Advocate Nakul Gandhi, emphasised the detrimental effect of Meta's actions on her client's professional activities. Ms. Kapoor urged the Court to direct a time-bound investigation and compel Meta to present the material upon which the actions were predicated.
In response, Advocate Varun Pathak, appearing for Meta, submitted that the reasons for disabling or restricting an account are typically communicated to the account holder via a notification within the account itself. Mr. Pathak informed the Court that, in the present instance, the accounts had been restricted or disabled due to content deemed non-compliant with community standards concerning 'Adult Sexual Solicitation' and as a result of 'scam and fraud reports.' Furthermore, Mr. Pathak raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the matter did not pertain to the infringement of any intellectual property rights.
The Court, after hearing the submissions from both parties, issued summons in the suit and notice on Ms. Gupta's application seeking interim relief. However, Justice Bhambhani orally stated that no interim relief would be granted at this stage of the proceedings. Subsequently, the Court explicitly directed, "Defendant No. 1 (Meta) is directed to place on record material based on which action has been taken against the plaintiff's accounts."
This directive underscores the Court's emphasis on transparency and the need for social media platforms to provide clear justifications for actions taken against user accounts, particularly when such actions have significant professional implications. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing in October, where Meta is expected to present the requested material to the Court.