The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant development on 28 March 2024, acknowledged a petition filed by M Vinod Kumar, who ran a YouTube channel known as String, against Google LLC, the owner of YouTube, regarding the alleged arbitrary suspension of its accounts.
Presiding over the case, Justice B. Krishna Mohan’s bench issued notices to both the Centre and Google, directing them to submit their responses within a stipulated period of four weeks. However, it is noteworthy that the Court refrained from granting any interim relief to String at this juncture. String, which purportedly generated a substantial monthly revenue ranging from ₹4 to 5 lakhs through its suspended channels, has further sought ₹2 crore in compensation from the concerned parties. Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha, representing String before the Court, emphasised the gravity of the situation, asserting that it involves the violation of a fundamental right. He stressed that as a YouTube journalist, String’s accounts were arbitrarily suspended by Google, warranting prompt action and redressal.
In response to the arguments presented by String’s counsel, the Court meticulously deliberated on the matter, ultimately deciding to issue notices to both Google and the Centre. This legal maneuver underscores the seriousness with which the Court views String’s allegations of arbitrary account suspension, signaling the commencement of legal proceedings in this regard.
It is crucial to delve into the background of the case to understand the intricacies involved. On 20 September 2023, YouTube undertook stringent measures against the “String” channel, permanently deleting it from the platform due to multiple violations. YouTube justified this drastic action by citing severe or repeated breaches of their Community Guidelines as the primary rationale for the channel’s removal. In an email screenshot shared by String, YouTube emphasized its obligation to take such actions to “protect other users” on the platform. The platform’s policy explicitly states that channels found violating Community Guidelines or Terms of Service may either receive a strike or face termination.
In response to the suspension, Vinod, the owner of the String channel, initiated legal action by filing a petition at the Andhra Pradesh High Court, demanding compensation of ₹2 Crores from Google for arbitrarily removing the channel from YouTube. The Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is being pursued through a Writ Petition by the Petitioner.
Significantly, the String had previously published a video titled “Video: Bill Gates EXPOSED Rockefeller Funds Fertility Vaccine SCAM I#BirthControl,” following which the account faced a one-week suspension. Subsequently, the video was reposted on “String Hindi,” after which all channels owned by the petitioner were indefinitely terminated.
Additionally, the petitioner has been prohibited from creating a new channel with the same name and barred from uploading videos. Furthermore, channels that bore no connection to the video titled “Video: Bill Gates EXPOSED- Rockefeller Funds Fertility Vaccine SCAM I#BirthControl” were also terminated by YouTube without providing any justification.
Vinod’s legal battle against YouTube’s actions is multifaceted and indicative of broader implications concerning freedom of speech and digital rights. As per media reports, YouTube announced that it had removed over 2.25 million videos for breaching its Community Guidelines in India during the fourth quarter of 2023, spanning from October to December. Additionally, globally, YouTube stated that it had taken down over nine million videos for violations of Community Guidelines during the same period. Notably, YouTube highlighted that more than 96% of these removed videos worldwide were initially flagged by automated systems rather than human review.
Citing the same report, Vinod contended that his channel was removed due to mass reporting and not community guidelines violations. He shared a post by self-proclaimed fact-checker Mohammad Zubair from Alt-News who boasted and took credit for removing the String Channel from YouTube.
Following the suspension of Vinod’s channel, Zubair wrote on X, “This String guy had shared a video on his YouTube channel targeting me, @dhruv_rathee, @khanumarfa and @RanaAyyub. We sent an email to YouTube reporting his videos. And the rest is history”
This String guy had shared a video on his YouTube channel targeting me, @dhruv_rathee, @khanumarfa and @RanaAyyub. We sent an email to YouTube reporting his videos. And the rest is history 🤡 pic.twitter.com/oyx9mLfQue
— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) December 15, 2023
Speaking to Organiser, Vinod said the standard format for getting a channel removed is by having a strike thrice in a month. However, Vinod’s channel faced no such strike even once, still, his channel was removed by YouTube in the name of community guidelines, which is bizarre. Vinod, who had a start-up company and employed as many as seven employees, is now jobless. His employees left the company following the suspension of the channel. He started a new OTT platform but it is still in the budding phase. He says he has now started working independently. But the suspension has hit him hard not only career-wise but financially as well. Vinod is determined to fight the legal battle and get his channel back on YouTube.
The intricacies of this legal battle underscore the broader discourse surrounding digital rights and the power dynamics between content creators and tech giants like Google and YouTube. Vinod’s case reflects the growing concerns regarding online censorship and the need for robust legal frameworks to safeguard freedom of expression in the digital age.
(with inputs from Organiser)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.