Government Examines Whether Content-Recommendation Algorithms Fit Intermediary Status Under IT Act
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology held meetings with a major social media company's leadership to examine whether its content-recommendation systems and paid content promotion are consistent with its legal status as an "intermediary" under the Information Technology Act, 2000
Discussions covered algorithmic content curation and ranking, deepfakes and AI-generated harmful content, child sexual abuse material, unlabeled synthetic content, and instances of content removal disputes
The central legal question under examination is whether a platform that actively determines what content is shown to which user — through recommendation algorithms and paid promotion — continues to qualify for intermediary protections, or whether such active curation amounts to "publishing," which falls outside intermediary immunity
The government indicated continued engagement with major platforms to assess ongoing compliance with intermediary obligations under the IT Act and IT Rules, 2021
Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000: Safe Harbour for Intermediaries
Section 79 grants "intermediaries" conditional immunity ("safe harbour") from liability for third-party content hosted, transmitted, or displayed on their platforms, provided they observe due diligence prescribed under the Act and applicable rules and do not initiate, select, or modify the content being transmitted. Section 2(1)(w) of the Act defines "intermediary" broadly to include any person who, on behalf of another, receives, stores, or transmits electronic records — covering network service providers, web-hosting services, search engines, and social media platforms.
The government's inquiry turns on whether recommendation algorithms and paid promotion amount to the platform "selecting" what content reaches users — a role Section 79(2) reserves to non-intermediary "publishers" — which could take Meta's curated feed outside Section 79 immunity for that specific function.
Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015): Reading Down Intermediary Liability
The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional and separately read down Section 79(3)(b), holding that an intermediary's "actual knowledge" of unlawful content must come through a court order or a notification from the appropriate government agency — not through private complaints — before an obligation to take down content arises.
Shreya Singhal protects intermediaries from being forced to judge content lawfulness themselves, but the current inquiry is a distinct question — whether the platform's own algorithmic choices about content distribution (not third-party takedown requests) are compatible with claiming intermediary status at all.
IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: Significant Social Media Intermediaries
The IT Rules, 2021 (framed under Section 87 read with Section 79 of the Act) prescribe due diligence for all intermediaries and additional obligations for "Significant Social Media Intermediaries" (SSMIs) — social media platforms with 5 million or more registered users in India, a threshold notified in February 2021.
As an SSMI, the platform is already subject to enhanced due-diligence obligations; the government's current examination goes further, questioning whether its core recommendation-and-promotion business model itself is compatible with intermediary status, independent of whether it meets SSMI compliance requirements.
- Section 79, IT Act, 2000: statutory basis for intermediary safe harbour, subject to due diligence under Section 79(2)
- Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015): read down "actual knowledge" under Section 79(3)(b) to require a court or government order
- IT Rules, 2021: SSMI threshold set at 5 million registered users, notified February 2021; enhanced due diligence effective May 25, 2021
- SSMI compliance requirements: Chief Compliance Officer, Nodal Contact Person, and Resident Grievance Officer, all India-based, plus monthly compliance reports
- Recent government-platform meetings covered deepfakes, AI-generated content, child sexual abuse material, and unlabeled synthetic content