'Like giving key to robber & not house's owner': Delhi HC asks Meta why scammers access Rights tool, not creators

Published 12 August 2026 · local

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned Meta over its criteria for granting access to its Rights Manager tool, particularly after allegations that genuine content

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned Meta over its criteria for granting access to its Rights Manager tool, particularly after allegations that genuine content creators are being denied access while fraudsters are exploiting the system to file bogus copyright claims against original material, reported Bar and Bench. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Meta to place its policy and eligibility requirements for accessing Rights Manager on record. The court also sought an explanation from the company on the grounds used to reject applications from creators seeking access to the content-protection tool. The court asked, “Why doesn’t everybody have access to it then?” "It is like giving the key to the robber and not to the owner of the house,” it observed. Mohit Kumar, an AI, business and e-commerce coach who publishes educational material on social media through his “Rise With Mohit” handle, brought the lawsuit.

Kumar claimed that fraudsters copied his original videos and submitted them to Meta’s Rights Manager, falsely portraying themselves as the copyright owners. He further alleged that they subsequently misused the tool to issue copyright strikes against his social media accounts. Kumar’s counsel informed the court that his client had applied for access to Meta’s Rights Manager tool on three occasions, but each application was rejected without a specific explanation. The counsel argued that creators with only a few hundred followers appeared to have been granted access, while established creators with substantial audience engagement and brand partnerships were allegedly being denied the same access. The counsel further submitted that misuse of copyright enforcement mechanisms could have severe consequences for genuine creators. A wrongful copyright strike, he argued, could potentially result in an account being removed overnight, putting years of content, revenue from monetisation, brand deals and business opportunities at risk.

Meta's response Meta, however, told the court that the disputed copyright strikes against Kumar had been withdrawn and that content taken down as a result had been restored. The company also clarified that Kumar’s accounts had never been suspended and remained accessible. Meta further said that, subject to technical verification, Kumar’s accounts would not be removed based on the contested copyright claims. The company’s counsel also assured the court that Kumar’s request for Rights Manager access would be reviewed after his claims were verified. Meta agreed to submit its policy governing access to the tool, along with the applicable eligibility requirements, before the court. What the court said The Delhi High Court ordered Meta to restore any content removed following fraudulent copyright strikes, provided Kumar submits adequate evidence demonstrating that he is the legitimate owner of the material and that the copyright claims were false.