---

Liability of Intermediaries

---

Introduction

An intermediary is a person or organization that acts as a link between the creator of information and its end user on the Internet.
Examples include Internet Service Providers (ISPs), social media platforms (Facebook, YouTube, Instagram), e-commerce sites (Amazon, Flipkart), and search engines (Google).

The main legal question is:
➡️ Should an intermediary be held responsible for illegal or harmful content shared by users on its platform?

Different countries have evolved different laws to decide this balance between freedom of the Internet and responsibility of online platforms.

---

A) Liability of Intermediaries in the U.S.A.

Legal Framework

In the United States, the law on intermediary liability is governed mainly by:

1. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 1996
2. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 1998

---

1. Section 230 of the CDA

Key Rule:
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Meaning:

• Internet platforms are not liable for third-party content posted by users.
• This gives them broad immunity from civil liability.

Example:
If someone posts defamatory comments on Facebook, the user is responsible, not Facebook.

---

Important U.S. Case Laws

a) Zeran v. America Online Inc. (1997)

Facts: A user posted false and defamatory messages about Zeran on AOL. Zeran sued AOL for not removing them promptly.
Held: AOL was not liable under Section 230 of the CDA.
Significance:

• Platforms are not publishers of third-party content.
• Established strong immunity for intermediaries in the U.S.

b) Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube (2012)

Facts: Viacom sued YouTube for hosting videos containing copyrighted content.
Held: The court ruled that YouTube was not liable because it had no actual knowledge of the infringing videos and removed them once notified.
Significance:

• Reinforced the “notice and takedown” system under the DMCA.
• If intermediaries act in good faith, they are protected.

---

Conclusion (U.S.A.)

• The U.S. model strongly protects intermediaries.
• Liability arises only when the platform has actual knowledge of illegal content and fails to act.
• This promotes free expression and innovation but has also led to concerns about lack of accountability.

---

B) Liability of Intermediaries in the U.K.

Legal Framework

The U.K. follows a more balanced approach under:

1. Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations, 2002
2. Defamation Act, 2013
3. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988

---

Key Provisions:

• Intermediaries are not liable if they act as mere conduits (just transmit data).
• They are exempt from liability if:
  • They do not initiate the transmission,
  • Do not modify the information, and
  • Act quickly to remove illegal content after notice.

---

Important U.K. Case Laws

a) Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd. (1999)

Facts: A defamatory message was posted on a Usenet group hosted by Demon Internet. The plaintiff requested its removal, but the company delayed.
Held: Demon Internet was liable because it failed to act after being notified.
Significance:

• Once the intermediary has knowledge, it must take action.
• Introduced the “notice and takedown” principle in U.K. law.

b) Tamiz v. Google Inc. (2013)

Facts: A blog hosted on Google contained defamatory statements. Google argued it was not the publisher.
Held: The Court of Appeal ruled that once Google was informed, failure to remove the post could make it liable as a secondary publisher.
Significance:

• Reinforced conditional immunity — no liability until notified, but responsibility arises after notice.

---

Conclusion (U.K.)

• The U.K. system is notice-based: intermediaries are safe until they are informed about illegal content.
• Once they have knowledge, they must remove or disable access promptly.
• Balances freedom of expression and protection of reputation and rights.

---

C) Liability of Intermediaries in India

Legal Framework

In India, intermediary liability is governed by the:

1. Information Technology Act, 2000
2. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

---

1. Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000

Safe Harbour Principle:

• Intermediaries are not liable for third-party content if:
  • The function is limited to providing access to a communication system.
  • They do not initiate the transmission or modify information.
  • They observe due diligence and act upon notice to remove unlawful content.

However:
Protection is lost if the intermediary:

• Conspires, aids, or abets the unlawful act.
• Fails to remove content after being notified by court or government authority.

---

2. Intermediary Guidelines Rules, 2021

• Platforms must remove objectionable content within 36 hours of receiving notice.
• Must preserve user data for 180 days for investigation.
• Significant social media intermediaries (like WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter) must appoint:
  • Chief Compliance Officer
  • Grievance Officer
  • Nodal Contact Person

---

Important Indian Case Laws

a) Avnish Bajaj v. State (Bazee.com Case, 2005)

Facts: A pornographic MMS clip was sold through the Bazee.com platform. The Managing Director, Avnish Bajaj, was arrested.
Held: The Delhi High Court ruled that he was not personally liable unless there was evidence of direct involvement.
Significance:

• Introduced the concept of intermediary liability in India.
• Led to the 2008 amendment of the IT Act introducing Section 79.

b) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

Facts: Petition challenged Section 66A and certain IT Rules.
Held: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional and clarified that intermediaries can remove content only upon court order or government notice.
Significance:

• Prevented arbitrary removal of content.
• Strengthened freedom of speech and due process online.

---

Conclusion (India)

• Indian law provides conditional immunity — intermediaries are safe if they act responsibly.
• They must observe due diligence, cooperate with authorities, and respect free speech.
• The law attempts to balance innovation with accountability.

---

Comparative Analysis Table

Aspect	U.S.A.	U.K.	India
Key Law	CDA, DMCA	EC Directive Regulations, Defamation Act	IT Act, 2000 & 2021 Rules
Type of Immunity	Broad immunity	Conditional immunity	Conditional immunity
Knowledge Standard	Actual knowledge required	Notice-based	Notice-based or Court order
Landmark Case	Zeran v. AOL (1997)	Godfrey v. Demon (1999)	Avnish Bajaj v. State (2005)
Liability Arises When	Platform fails after notice	Fails to remove after notice	Fails to act after court/government order

---

Final Conclusion

The liability of intermediaries is an evolving legal concept that reflects how countries manage the Internet:

• The U.S. promotes innovation and free expression with broad immunity.
• The U.K. follows a middle path, ensuring accountability after notice.
• India balances constitutional freedoms with public safety, requiring intermediaries to act responsibly and transparently.

Thus, while intermediaries are not the creators of content, their duty of care in managing the digital space is crucial for maintaining a safe and lawful cyberspace.