Facebook saves face by approaching Gujarat HC

AHMEDABAD: Social media giant Facebook is facing a lawsuit over objectionable comments posted on the platform against a credit co-operative society's alleged malfunctioning.
Gujarat high court had to step in to stay criminal proceedings initiated against Facebook by the complainant who felt the social media platform was in the wrong as it had neglected to remove objectionable posts harming the complainant.
Facebook has now removed the posts objected to, and obtained stay on the criminal proceedings by knocking on the doors of Gujarat High Court.
Some members of Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd had made apparently defaming and objectionable comments in 2014 against the society on various social platforms.
They made several allegations against its office bearers, which the latter found highly objectionable.
The credit co-operative requested social media platforms to remove the comments. Various websites and social media platforms obliged the society's office bearers, but Facebook did not respond.
This led the co-op society to file a complaint with the metropolitan court requesting it to direct Facebook to delete the concerned posts and punish responsible officials of the company for letting the objectionable comments stay on the platform.
The court took cognizance of the complaint, began criminal proceedings, and issued summons to Facebook official Jack Charles Gilbert asking him to explain the issue.
Facebook subsequently removed the comments, but it was required to rush to the high court to get the criminal proceedings quashed.
For the social media company, senior counsel Nirupam Nanavati argued that Facebook is not a publisher, but only a platform where people can put their comments.
The company is not responsible for what its users post on the platform, and it is practically impossible to monitor and edit crores of comments posted daily on Facebook across the world.
The senior lawyer also submitted that the posts were removed by Facebook subsequently, and it should not be held liable for any damages caused to any of the parties participating on the platform.
On his submission, the HC stayed the proceedings against the company and admitted the case.
The complainant's lawyer said that the issue that is in the centre of the controversy is, in absence of any checks and balances, what should be the liability of the intermediary when any post hurts sentiments of any person.
The end users' license agreement puts certain restrictions on users and fixes certain liabilities on participants, but to what extent could such liability be fixed on social media has to be determined.