Google, YouTube smell trouble as Madras HC asks them to give user details

CHENNAI: Google and its subsidiary YouTube are in a bind. They have been directed by the Madras high court to part with details of a user (Marupakkam Seithigal) who posted a video content dubbed defamatory by a private company (Lebara Foundation).
Google and YouTube had been resisting such a judicial order on the ground that it would expose them to legal action by user(s) and that it would be illegal as well as impossible to monitor contents of all video posted on their portal.
Rejecting the argument, the first bench said: "We are of the view that the minimum which is required to be done when the portal is used for materials which are prima facie offensive is to disclose the identity and IP address in pursuance of the direction passed by the single judge of the court. Instead, YouTube and Google want Lebara to go through a circuitous route which is not necessary.”
"In our view, YouTube and Google are being unnecessarily apprehensive about the possibility of legal proceedings being initiated against them by the undisclosed Marupakkam, as certainly the agreement (with Marupakkam) does not contain a term that there would be no disclosure of information even if directed by the court. That being the position, we see no reason for any apprehensions of YouTube and Google of them being liable for any legal proceedings by Marupakkam.”
"The minimal assistance required for mitigating a civil wrong of Marupakkam is furnishing the information as directed by the court," it said.
YouTube and Google are caught in the crossfire between Lebara Foundation and Marupakkam Seithigal in a defamatory suit filed by Lebara against Marupakkam, the bench said.
The matter relates to the appeals filed by Google and YouTube against a single judge order directing them to furnish the two companies to furnish identity and address details of Marupakkam Seithigal which had posted a video on YouTube about Lebara.
The order was passed on a civil suit filed by Lebara for a direction to YouTube and Google to remove the video posting and clock its access from anywhere.
On May 13, the court granted an ex party interim order restraining them from making available the defamatory video about Lebara.
Google and YouTube said access to the URL was blocked in India. They informed Lebara that acting on its legal complaint the video posting had been blocked the country domain. If Lebara furnishes other URLs and identify contents of the video URL, they too would be blocked, they said.
They also moved the single judge for modification of the 'over broad' order saying the video could not be blocked outside India.
YouTube and Google are not in a position to completely comply with the order since it would amount to monitoring contents of the video posted on their platform, they said.
Noting that the companies had no control over contents uploaded on their platform, YouTube and Google said there was no way they could monitor the author of the impugned content that could be uploaded anywhere on internet.
As the IP address of the user is registered outside Indian jurisdiction, they were not on a position to provide all details, they said.
The single judge did modify the order, but insisted that YouTube and Google must furnish IP address and other details of Marupakkam author who uploaded the video on Lebara.
It was then that the present appeals were filed by YouTube and Google.
Dismissing the appeals, the first bench said: "The single judge perused the allegations and passed an interim order of restraint with which YouTube and Google already complied with.”
"The next step is to serve notice to Marupakkam against whom defamation proceedings have been initiated. For that purpose, YouTube and Google have been asked to disclose the address where the author could be served."
Noting that the single judge had indeed taken into consideration that YouTube and Google were only facilitators, the bench said.
As for the claim that furnishing the information sought by the court may expose the YouTube and Google to legal proceedings as it may possibly amount to breach of privacy agreement between them and Marupakkam, the bench said:
"The single judge has noticed, and in our view rightly so, that it is not some secret information affecting such personal rights of the undisclosed Marupakkam which are sought to be made available in pursuance to the direction of the court, but identity and address so that the court can take appropriate process to determine the rights of Lebara and Marupakkam," the court said.