Government Plans Tighter Rules for Social Media Brands Like Facebook, TikTok, ShareChat

Government Plans Tighter Rules for Social Media Brands Like Facebook, TikTok, ShareChat is a CNBC-TV18 news report published on 28 August 2019, written by Sunny Sen. The article covers the Indian government’s plans to impose higher accountability on social media platforms by narrowing the scope of intermediary safe harbour protections, particularly for platforms that curate or create content. Sunil Abraham, then Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society, is quoted on the competition harms that arise when intermediaries participate in the very markets they host, and on the nuances of user-granted content licences.

Contents

  1. Article Details
  2. Full Text
  3. Context and Background
  4. External Link

Article Details

📰 Published in:
CNBC-TV18
📅 Date:
28 August 2019
👤 Author:
Sunny Sen
📄 Type:
News report
🔗 Publication Link:
Read Online

Full Text

The government is planning to impose higher levels of accountability on social media platforms.

The government is planning to impose higher levels of accountability on social media platforms as it grapples with the problem of bringing about order in a fast-growing industry where regulations are still nebulous.

One important measure it is considering is to tell social media brands such as TikTok, Facebook and ShareChat that they will be legally liable for content that they have had a hand in either creating or curating.

Which means that even if there is the slightest fingerprint of a social media company on a piece of content, platforms cannot claim to be mere intermediaries and disclaim responsibility for consequences.

"Social media companies can't bring out original content or they should take responsibility for them," said a senior government source, explaining the centre's thinking on the issue.

The explosive increase in user-generated content, especially short videos, has become a regulation headache for the authorities. When user-generated social media content crosses the bounds of decency, spreads hate or propagates fake news, intermediary status also confers legal immunity because the platforms can claim they do not know what the user is putting up unless an individual or software raises a red flag.

While in the case of traditional media such as newspapers and television there is editorial control over what is printed or goes on air, social media is still a free-for-all world. Social media companies have so far argued that they are only intermediaries, and users generate content over which they have no control. But in practice, it is not all that clear-cut.

"Safe harbour is for non-curated content," said Subho Ray, President of Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI). "Safe harbour is not applicable to platform, but to the piece of content. If the content is curated by a company they can't claim safe harbour because if you are curating it or have exclusive rights over it, you have seen it."

The government is also considering to stop intermediaries from having exclusive user-generated content on the platform.

"Discussions are on, but there is no decision on that yet," said another source.

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Bangalore-based research organisation the Centre for Internet and Society, said, "An intermediary is providing a two-sided market. If they participate in that market there could be competition harms."

For context, TikTok owned by Chinese internet conglomerate ByteDance sent a notice to ShareChat to take down content for which the former had signed exclusive rights. ShareChat took it off, but also sent a letter to Ajay Sawhney, Secretary of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), on August 23, asking for clarity on laws governing intermediaries.

"Instead of acting as intermediaries (that are protected by safe harbour liability exemptions), such exclusivity deals result in these platforms being considered broadcasters or streaming services (and therefore directly liable for the nature of the content distributed by them)," Berges Y. Malu, Head of Public Policy and Policy Communications at Mohalla Technology Pvt. Ltd. (owners of ShareChat) wrote in the letter.

TikTok engages with users who can promote the platform and teach other users how to use it. It also encourages and incentivises content creation by some of these users, but does not exercise any editorial control over content creation. "TikTok may enter into a mutual contractual agreement with some creators, where TikTok may enjoy certain exclusivity rights over the content of these creators," said a TikTok spokesperson commenting on ShareChat sending a letter to the government. "In this regard, TikTok has undertaken legal action as part of its commitment to protect its users from copyright infringement."

But, there is a catch there. "They can claim all rights. Because the user had granted such a liberal license. But the user as the copyright holder can license it again and again to multiple parties because these licenses are non-exclusive," said Abraham.

Back to Top ⇧

Context and Background

The article was published in August 2019, at a moment when the Indian government was actively deliberating amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011. The trigger for the TikTok–ShareChat dispute was TikTok’s claim of exclusive rights over content that users had also posted on ShareChat, raising the precise question the article addresses: whether a platform that asserts exclusivity over user-generated content can simultaneously claim safe harbour as a neutral intermediary.

Sunil Abraham’s two contributions to the article are analytically distinct. The first — on two-sided markets and competition harms — points to a structural concern: platforms that both host a marketplace and participate in it as sellers or buyers face inherent conflicts of interest that safe harbour protections were not designed to cover. The second — on the non-exclusivity of user copyright licences — is a precise legal observation: regardless of what a platform’s terms of service claim, a user can grant the same content licence to multiple platforms simultaneously, since standard platform licences are non-exclusive.

The amended Intermediary Guidelines that eventually emerged in 2021 did not fully resolve the curation question Abraham raised, but they did introduce significant traceability and content moderation obligations — a partial move in the direction the government was signalling in this 2019 report.

📄 This page was created on 10 March 2026. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .