The Indian government has drawn a sharp line in the sand for Big Tech, turning its regulatory gaze toward Meta over the proliferation of deepfakes and harmful AI-generated content on its platforms.
In what could evolve into a landmark test of platform accountability under Indian law, the Centre has asked the social media giant to take corrective action and is simultaneously examining whether Meta’s algorithmic content curation undermines its legal standing as a mere intermediary.
At the heart of the matter lies a deceptively simple question with far-reaching consequences: can a platform that actively determines what millions of users see continue to enjoy the safe harbour protections afforded to intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000?
The government’s scrutiny, according to sources familiar with the discussions, zeroes in on the role played by Meta’s recommendation engines. These systems do not passively host content; they actively decide “what is shown to whom,” prioritising and amplifying certain posts while relegating others to obscurity.
When a platform also promotes content for payment — through boosted posts, sponsored placements, and algorithmic favour — the lines between a neutral conduit and a publisher begin to blur.
Officials are weighing whether such functions are consistent with the legal definition of an intermediary at all. If a platform exercises editorial discretion over what appears on a user’s screen, the argument goes, that function is indistinguishable from publishing. And if a platform publishes, it can no longer claim the insulation from liability that intermediary status provides.
The stakes could not be higher. Section 79 of the IT Act, read together with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, grants intermediaries exemption from liability for third-party content — provided they exercise due diligence. Lose that shield, and platforms potentially face consequential action under a spectrum of laws, including the IT Act itself and the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Deepfakes: The immediate flashpoint
The conceptual debate over algorithmic accountability has been catalysed by a more immediate, visceral concern: the unchecked spread of deepfakes and other harmful AI-generated content on Meta’s platforms. After several rounds of intensive talks in recent days, the government has formally requested that Meta take robust corrective measures against such material.
Deepfakes — hyper-realistic but fabricated images, audio, and video generated through artificial intelligence — have emerged as a global policy headache. In the Indian context, they carry particular potency, capable of inflaming communal tensions, manipulating electoral discourse, and inflicting irreversible reputational harm on individuals.
The government’s message to Meta appears unequivocal: passive takedown mechanisms are insufficient; proactive, system-level interventions are expected.
Meta is unlikely to be the only company in the crosshairs. The government has signalled that it intends to consult with other platforms to assess whether they, too, satisfy the definition of an intermediary under Indian law.
This broader inquiry suggests a structural rethink of how platform governance is approached in the country — one that could reshape the regulatory landscape for social media companies, content aggregators, and digital service providers alike.
What emerges from these deliberations could set a precedent that ripples well beyond India’s borders. Jurisdictions around the world are grappling with the same tension: the intermediary liability frameworks built for an earlier internet are buckling under the weight of algorithmic amplification and generative AI. India’s answer to this conundrum will be watched closely.
For now, the ball is in Meta’s court. The company must demonstrate that its recommendation systems and its content moderation apparatus are compatible with the obligations of an intermediary — or face the prospect of being treated as something far more exposed to legal liability.