Author: Mahima Mittal
College: Asian Law College, Noida
Abstract
The rise of social media and independent digital publishing in India has created a new and troubling channel for cybercrime, namely the misuse of copyright strike mechanisms to extort content creators. Platforms such as Meta owned Instagram and Facebook, along with YouTube, allow rights holders to lodge copyright complaints that can lead to the takedown or suspension of an account, frequently without meaningful human verification. Organised actors and anonymous accounts, often identified in court records under the placeholder’s name Ashok Kumar or John Doe, have begun exploiting this loophole by filing fabricated or manipulated copyright claims against the genuine creators of content, then demanding payment for withdrawal of the strike or restoration of the account. Through the course of 2026, several prominent digital creators approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection, disclosure of the identity of the offenders, and a judicial examination of the underlying platform mechanism. This article examines the mechanics of copyright strike extortion, the statutory and constitutional framework applicable in India, and the recent case law that has begun to shape the judiciary’s response to this emerging form of cyber extortion.
To the Point
Copyright strike extortion refers to the practice of weaponizing a platform’s copyright enforcement tools against the very person who owns the content, in order to extract money or some other benefit. The scheme generally follows a recognisable pattern. An anonymous or bot operated account either reposts a creator’s original work on a low engagement page and then, using a feature such as Facebook’s Edit Post tool, alters the caption or upload date to make it appear that the impersonating account published the work first, or the account simply lodges a copyright complaint against the original creator while falsely asserting ownership. Because platforms such as Meta and YouTube largely rely on automated systems to act on such complaints, a strike is issued and the creator’s post, page, or entire account is taken down or restricted, frequently without any prior notice or opportunity to respond.
Once the creator’s livelihood is placed at risk, most platforms operate a three-strike policy under which a third strike results in permanent deletion of the channel or page. The offenders then approach the creator, often through direct messages or intermediaries, and demand a sum of money, sometimes running into several lakhs of rupees, in exchange for withdrawing the strike or refraining from filing further complaints. Some creators are pressured into what is effectively a forced settlement, paying to protect years of content and audience reach rather than risk permanent loss of their channel while a dispute is pending. Because the offending accounts are anonymous, operate through bots, and are frequently based outside India, identifying and prosecuting them has proved difficult, and creators have increasingly had to approach the courts for interim protection and for orders directing platforms to disclose subscriber information.
Use of Legal Jargon
The problem sits at the intersection of copyright law, cyber law, and criminal law. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 51 defines what amounts to infringement, Section 55 provides civil remedies including injunction and damages, and Section 63 prescribes criminal liability for knowing infringement. A fabricated copyright claim made solely to extract money does not fit neatly within these provisions, since the offender is not infringing a work so much as falsely asserting ownership over someone else’s work in order to trigger a platform’s enforcement tools.
The conduct is more accurately captured by the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 66C penalises identity theft through fraudulent use of another person’s electronic signature, password, or other unique identification feature, and Section 66D penalises cheating by personation using a computer resource. Section 79 grants intermediaries a conditional safe harbour from liability for third party content, provided the intermediary observes due diligence, and courts have begun to ask whether an automated strike system that acts without human verification satisfies that standard. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 impose grievance redressal obligations on intermediaries, including the appointment of a Grievance Officer and timelines for resolving complaints.
On the criminal side, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with effect from 1 July 2024, is directly relevant. Section 308 of the BNS, corresponding to the erstwhile Section 384 of the IPC, punishes extortion, that is, the act of putting a person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly inducing that person to deliver property, which would cover a demand for money made under threat of permanent deletion of a creator’s channel. Section 318 of the BNS, corresponding to the erstwhile Section 420 of the IPC, punishes cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, which may also be attracted where a false ownership claim is used to extract payment. At a constitutional level, courts have recognised that the ability of a creator to earn a livelihood through digital platforms engages Article 19(1)(a), the freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, which has been read to include the right to livelihood.
The Proof
The scale of the problem has become difficult for courts and platforms to ignore during 2026. A cluster of suits and a public interest litigation are currently pending before the Delhi High Court, all describing a similar pattern of fabricated copyright complaints being used to disable creators’ accounts and then extract payment for restoration. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while hearing suits filed by content creators Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh and Prateek Sahni, remarked that the manner in which such platforms function has given people an opportunity for blackmail, and that the system has, in certain ways, become a platform for extortion.
A separate public interest litigation before the Delhi High Court has sought a Special Investigation Team probe into what is described as an organised cyber extortion racket, involving bot operated accounts and anonymous complainants filing fake copyright infringement complaints against creators. Reported demands in individual cases have run into several lakhs of rupees, and one widely reported instance involved a demand of eighteen lakh rupees to prevent a channel from being taken down. Broadcasters have not been spared either, with TV Today Network filing a suit seeking two crore rupees in damages after anonymous accounts allegedly used false copyright strikes against its social media pages to attempt extortion. Meta has, in more than one hearing, undertaken before the Court to reverse specific strikes and to disclose subscriber information relating to the accounts responsible, while accepting that its automated enforcement systems often function without human intervention.
Case Laws
1. Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar and Ors., CS(COMM) 775/2026
The plaintiff, a content creator, approached the Delhi High Court after his Meta account was restricted following a series of copyright complaints he alleged were fabricated. Hearing this suit together with a connected suit filed by another creator, Prateek Sahni, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that Meta’s automated copyright enforcement mechanism was being exploited by bad actors for blackmail and extortion. The Court directed Meta to furnish subscriber information and IP logs relating to the accounts alleged to have misused the copyright reporting system, and granted Meta time to file a detailed reply on the account restrictions.
2. Pushkar Raj Thakur v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors., CS(COMM) 647/2026
The plaintiff, a financial educator and digital creator, alleged that certain defendants first uploaded arbitrary or unrelated content on low engagement Facebook pages, and then, immediately after the plaintiff published original content on Instagram, downloaded and misappropriated that content, using Facebook’s Edit Post feature to alter captions and timestamps so as to make it falsely appear that the defendants had published the work first. This engineered priority was then used to trigger copyright strikes against the plaintiff’s genuine content. The suit sought protection of the plaintiff’s copyrighted material and disclosure of the identities behind the offending accounts, and is being heard alongside a similarly framed suit filed by another creator before the same court.
3. Nitin Joshi v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 9441/2026
Following the release of a video in which the petitioner, a creator with a large Instagram following, exposed what he described as Instagram’s biggest copyright scam, his own video was blocked worldwide pursuant to a copyright complaint attributed to an unidentified entity. After representations to the concerned ministries and to Meta’s Grievance Officer went unanswered, the petitioner filed a public interest litigation before the Delhi High Court alleging an organised cyber extortion racket that uses anonymous entities, bot operated accounts, and fraudulent complainants to file fake copyright infringement complaints against digital content creators, disable their accounts, and then demand money for restoration. A Division Bench issued notice to the Union of India and Meta, seeking their response to the allegations.
4. TV Today Network Limited & Anr. v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors.
TV Today Network, the broadcaster of channels including AajTak, filed a suit seeking two crore rupees in damages after anonymous accounts issued false copyright strikes against its social media posts, which the broadcaster alleged caused harm to its business and reputation and amounted to an attempt at extortion through misuse of Meta’s copyright enforcement mechanism. At a hearing before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, counsel for Meta undertook to reverse the two challenged strikes and to provide the Basic Subscriber Information and IP logs relating to the accounts behind them, and the Court directed that the strikes be reversed within one month and the subscriber information furnished within two weeks.
Conclusion
Copyright strike extortion has emerged as a significant and rapidly growing concern for India’s digital creator economy in 2026. What began as isolated complaints by individual creators has, within a matter of months, developed into a cluster of suits and a public interest litigation before the Delhi High Court, with the judiciary itself acknowledging that automated copyright enforcement tools on major platforms have, in certain respects, become instruments of blackmail. The existing legal framework, spanning the Copyright Act, 1957, the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Intermediary Guidelines of 2021, and the extortion and cheating provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is capable of addressing individual instances of this conduct, but was not designed with an organised, technology enabled racket of this scale in mind.
Going forward, courts appear inclined to press platforms such as Meta, Google, and Telegram to introduce meaningful human verification before a strike results in suspension, to build faster and fairer dispute resolution channels, and to cooperate with disclosure orders that allow offenders to be identified and prosecuted. Until such structural changes are in place, individual creators remain exposed, and continued judicial scrutiny, coordinated investigation by law enforcement, and greater platform accountability will all be necessary to protect the livelihood and creative output of India’s digital creators.
FAQs
Q1. What is copyright strike extortion?
It refers to the practice of filing a false or fabricated copyright complaint against a content creator’s own original work, so as to trigger a takedown or account suspension, and then demanding money from the creator to withdraw the complaint or restore the account.
Q2. What can a creator do if they receive a suspicious copyright strike?
A creator can preserve evidence of original authorship such as raw footage and upload records, file a dispute through the platform’s grievance mechanism, report the matter to the police and the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, and, where the account or channel is at risk, approach the appropriate High Court for interim protection and for an order directing the platform to disclose the identity of the complainant.
Reference
• Delhi High Court Flags Misuse Of Meta’s Copyright Strike System, Calls It ‘Platform For Extortion By Bad Actors’ — https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-high-court-flags-misuse-of-metas-copyright-strike-system-calls-it-platform-for-extortion-by-bad-actors-543557
• Content Creators Move Delhi HC Alleging Misuse OfFacebook ‘Edit Post’ Tool To Trigger False Copyright Strikes — https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/content-creators-move-delhi-hc-alleging-misuse-of-facebook-edit-post-tool-to-trigger-false-copyright-strikes-541553
• Delhi High Court Seeks Centre, Meta’s Reply On PIL Alleging Misuse Of Instagram Copyright Strike Mechanism — https://www.livelawbiz.com/copyright/delhi-high-court-seeks-centre-metas-reply-on-pil-alleging-misuse-of-instagram-copyright-strike-mechanism-543184
• Meta to reverse copyright strikes on TV Today posts after HC hearing, Business Standard — https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/meta-to-reverse-copyright-strikes-on-tv-today-posts-after-delhi-hc-hearing-126072201425_1.html
• Fake copyright strikes used to extort from Instagram creators, MediaNama — https://www.medianama.com/2026/07/223-fake-copyright-strikes-extort-instagram-creators-delhi-hc/
• LiveLawBiz IPR Monthly Digest, July 2026 — https://www.livelawbiz.com/amp/digests/monthly-digests/livelawbiz-ipr-monthly-digest-july-2026-544039
