Introduction
Scroll, like, share – sue. In less than two decades, social media platforms have evolved from neutral “pipes” for user expression into powerful architects of public discourse. What users see, engage with, and amplify is no longer accidental; it is curated by opaque algorithms and governed by platform policies that increasingly resemble private law. This transformation lies at the centre of contemporary debates on intermediary liability: when should platforms be treated as mere messengers, and when should they bear responsibility as publishers or co-authors of harm?[1]
What Is Intermediary Liability?
Intermediaries are entities that facilitate communication between speakers and audiences, including internet service providers, hosting services, search engines, social networking platforms, messaging applications, and online marketplaces.[2] Intermediary liability determines the circumstances in which these actors may be held legally responsible for unlawful third-party content such as defamation, hate speech, copyright infringement, or misinformation.[3]
Across jurisdictions, three core principles recur. First is safe harbour, which provides conditional immunity where intermediaries play a limited, neutral role and comply with due-diligence obligations such as notice-and-takedown mechanisms.[4] Second is the emerging duty of care, which increasingly requires platforms to implement proactive systems to mitigate illegal or harmful content, without formally imposing a general monitoring obligation. [5] Third is the need to balance fundamental rights, ensuring that liability regimes reconcile freedom of expression, privacy, and business autonomy with protection from online harm. [6]
Traditional intermediary liability models assumed passivity: intermediaries merely transmitted or stored user content. However, the engagement-driven architecture of modern social media, powered by behavioural advertising and algorithmic recommendation systems, has disrupted this assumption. Platforms now actively shape attention and discourse, challenging the long-standing fiction of neutrality. [7]
Indian Framework: Section 79 of the IT Act and the 2021 Rules
In India, Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 forms the statutory backbone of intermediary liability. It grants safe harbour for third-party content, provided the unlawful act occurs without the intermediary’s knowledge and the intermediary exercises “all due diligence” to prevent violations. [8] This establishes a model of conditional immunity, where failure to comply with due-diligence obligations results in the loss of protection.
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 significantly recalibrate this balance. They classify intermediaries, introduce the concept of “significant social media intermediaries” based on user thresholds, and impose heightened obligations on larger platforms. [9]These include expanded grievance redressal mechanisms, time-bound takedown requirements upon actual knowledge or government orders, content restrictions within user agreements, and data retention obligations. [10]
Significant social media intermediaries face additional compliance burdens, such as appointing senior compliance officers, deploying automated tools to proactively identify certain categories of content, enabling traceability of the first originator of messages on encrypted platforms, and facing potential criminal liability for non-compliance. [11]While intended to align intermediary regulation with reasonable restrictions on free speech, scholars argue that the Rules raise serious concerns relating to privacy, encryption, over-blocking, and legal uncertainty.
Indian Judicial Approach: From Passive Hosts to Active Curators
Indian courts have played a central role in shaping the contours of intermediary liability. Judicial decisions have consistently held that safe harbour protection is contingent upon expeditious action after acquiring knowledge of unlawful content, while resisting the imposition of blanket monitoring duties. [13] Courts have recognised a broad spectrum of intermediaries, including search engines, social networks, marketplaces, and content platforms, and have examined whether their functional roles provide effective control over user content. [14]
By interpreting due-diligence obligations strictly, courts have nudged intermediaries toward increasingly active content moderation to avoid liability. [15] However, scholars note that inconsistent judicial standards and frequent regulatory changes have created uncertainty regarding the precise scope of intermediary obligations, highlighting the need for clearer and more predictable legal frameworks. [16]
From Neutral Hosts to Algorithmic Gatekeepers
The most significant challenge to intermediary neutrality arises from algorithmic recommendation systems. Platforms no longer merely host content; they rank, recommend, auto-play, and personalise feeds to maximise engagement. This active curation amplifies certain content, including misinformation, hate speech, and extremist material, while marginalising other voices. [17]
Comparative approaches reflect growing discomfort with traditional liability exemptions. In the European Union, the Digital Services Act retains safe harbour protections but layers them with risk-based due-diligence, transparency, and systemic risk assessment obligations, particularly for Very Large Online Platforms. [18] In the United States, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act continues to provide broad immunity, but critics argue it weakens incentives to address social harms, prompting calls to condition immunity on reasonable duties of care. [19] Jurisdictions such as China and parts of Europe increasingly treat algorithmic recommendation as an intervention capable of triggering liability, directly challenging conduit-based models. [20]
Emerging Harms and the Liability Question
The contemporary digital ecosystem presents complex risks, including rapid dissemination of misinformation, online harassment and hate speech, viral defamation, deepfakes, and algorithmic amplification of polarising content. [21] Indian scholarship on fake news reflects growing calls for platform accountability, while cautioning against over-regulation that could chill legitimate speech and democratic discourse. [22] Globally, regulators are experimenting with duty-of-care models that focus on systemic risk management rather than strict liability for every failure of detection. [23]
Conclusion
The central challenge today is no longer whether platforms host unlawful content, but how their design choices and algorithms contribute to its visibility and impact. As social media increasingly governs public discourse, intermediary liability frameworks must evolve beyond binary distinctions of “publisher” and “platform.” The future lies in calibrated accountability models that recognise algorithmic influence, preserve fundamental rights, and impose proportionate responsibilities without transforming platforms into instruments of censorship. Likes may be frictionless, but lawsuits signal that the law is finally catching up.
Reference
1. Dipanshu, Intermediary Liability and Accountability of Social Media Platforms in India: Navigating Freedom of Expression and Online Abuse, INT’L J. RSCH. L. & SOC. SCI. (2025).
2. Anna Asunka, Internet Service Providers and Intermediary Liabilities, ADVANCES MULTIDISCIPLINARY & SCI. RSCH. (2022).
3. Indranath Gupta et al., Evolving Scope of Intermediary Liability in India, INT’L REV. L., COMPUTERS & TECH. (2023).
4. Council Directive 2000/31/EC, 2000 O.J. (L 178) 1 (EC) (E-Commerce Directive).
5. Caio Machado et al., Emerging Regulations on Content Moderation and Misinformation Policies of Online Media Platforms, BUS. & HUM. RTS. J. (2023).
6. Giancarlo F. Frosio et al., Taking Fundamental Rights Seriously in the Digital Services Act’s Platform Liability Regime, EUR. L.J. (2023).
7. Valentina Moscon, Free Circulation of Information and Online Intermediaries – Replacing One “Value Gap” with Another, INT’L REV. INTELL. PROP. & COMPETITION L. (2020).
8. Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 79, INDIA CODE (2000).
9. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, GAZETTE OF INDIA, Mar. 25, 2021.
10. Neeti Biyani, Internet Impact Brief: Indian Intermediary Guidelines 2021 and the Internet Experience in India (2021).
11. S. Ashwini, Social Media Platform Regulation in India – A Special Reference to the IT Rules, 2021 (2021).
12. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).
13. MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Indus. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6382 (India).
14. Kent RO Sys. Ltd. v. Amit Kotak, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7201 (India).
15. Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215 (India).
16. M. Watney, Regulation of Social Media Intermediary Liability for Illegal and Harmful Content, in PROC. EUR. CONF. ON SOC. MEDIA (2022).
17. Xiaofeng Cheng et al., Legal Analysis of Publisher and Conspirator Liability in Algorithmic Content Recommendation Mechanisms, LECTURE NOTES EDUC. PSYCH. (2025).
18. Miriam C. Buiten, The Digital Services Act: From Intermediary Liability to Platform Regulation, SSRN (2021).
19. 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996).
20. Miquel Peguera, The Platform Neutrality Conundrum and the Digital Services Act, IIC – INT’L REV. INTELL. PROP. & COMPETITION L. (2022).
21. Surya S.K. et al., Regulating Fake News on Social Media Platforms: An Analysis of the Indian Legal System and Other Jurisdictions, INT’L J. MULTIDISCIPLINARY RSCH. (2024).
22. Giancarlo F. Frosio, Reforming Intermediary Liability in the Platform Economy, LEGAL INFO. & TECH. J. (2017).
23. Julián López Richart, A New Legal Framework for Online Platforms in the European Union (and Beyond), REV. EUR. & COMP. L.
(2024).