Govt vs Meta: Can it still be called an ‘Intermediary’?
The Indian Government and Meta are currently engaged in discussions over the company’s status as an intermediary under Indian law. What began as calm talks has turned into a major legal question that could reshape the digital world: Can a platform that influences content and promotes paid posts still be called an “intermediary”?
Government sources say recent meetings have focused on Meta’s recommendation systems and paid content promotions. The main question is whether these features mean Meta is no longer a neutral messenger but is acting as a publisher. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act gives intermediaries a “safe harbour,” protecting them from being held responsible for third-party content. This protection is based on the idea that they only carry user content without controlling or choosing what appears.
Now, sources say the Government is asking a tougher question. If Meta’s algorithms decide what content users see and give paid posts special placement, is the platform still neutral, or is it shaping what people see? If a company chooses what information users see, it is not just a passive channel. It is acting as a publisher. Unlike intermediaries, publishers are responsible for the content they share with the public. This is not just an old legal idea.
Safe harbour has protected platforms from lawsuits over user content, which has helped them grow. Without this protection, they could face serious legal risks. Intermediaries that do not follow Section 79 and the IT Rules 2021 could lose this exemption. If that happens, they could be fully subject to the IT Act or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), making even one viral post a serious issue. At the same time, another concern is being discussed: deepfakes. In recent meetings, officials have asked Meta to do more to stop fake digital images and voices that can impersonate people, create false scandals, or quickly spread misinformation.
Technology is advancing faster than old moderation tools, and the government wants platforms to treat this as an urgent problem, not a distant one. The Government’s focus on this issue is clear.
Sources say this is not just regulation for its own sake. The government wants to know if the current legal rules for intermediaries still apply to platforms that control what content is seen. When some voices get more attention, the claim of neutrality becomes questionable. If Meta is already acting as a director instead of staying in the background, the impact will go far beyond one company. Other platforms that use ranking and promotion will face the same scrutiny.
Safe harbour, which once seemed permanent, could become a conditional privilege given only to platforms that prove they are true intermediaries and not publishers. For millions of Indians who get their news and entertainment from these platforms, the outcome matters. More accountability could mean faster removal of harmful content and clearer rules for paid posts. But it could also make platforms more cautious and slow the flow of information because of legal concerns. No final decision has been made yet.
Talks are ongoing, and Meta has been asked to respond about its status as an intermediary and its approach to deepfakes. In a country where online discussion is bigger than any physical gathering, the outcome will shape public conversation for years. The law still protects true intermediaries, those who only deliver messages. The question is whether Meta has already moved from being a messenger to taking on the greater responsibility of a publisher, deciding whose voice is heard and whose is not.
