The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (August 12, 2026) sought clarity from Meta over its policy governing access to its Rights Manager tool, after concerns were raised that fraudulent actors have allegedly exploited the platform’s copyright-protection mechanism to target original content.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Meta to place on record its norms and eligibility criteria for granting access to Rights Manager, along with the grounds on which applications for the tool may be rejected.

Meta releases new open weight model, pushes global AI vision amid race with rivals

The directions came during the hearing of a suit filed by content creator and business coach Mohit Kumar, who operates the social media handle Rise With Mohit.

Mr. Kumar, represented by advocates Himanshu Goyal and Muskaan Garg, alleged that scammers first copied and uploaded his original videos to Meta’s Rights Manager, falsely presenting themselves as the rights holders, and then relied on those registrations to have copyright strikes issued against Mr. Kumar’s accounts.

Meta will soon face another high-stakes trial in U.S.

Applied thrice

The counsel submitted that his client had applied for access to Rights Manager on three occasions but was rejected without being given any specific reason. They pointed out that creators with relatively smaller audiences had been granted access to the tool, while established creators with substantial viewership, engagement and commercial collaborations were allegedly being denied it.

The counsel further submitted that, in Mr. Kumar’s case, the consequences of the alleged fraudulent content removals extended beyond the restoration of the content, affecting his audience engagement, commercial collaborations and ability to sell his courses.

Meta’s counsel informed the court that the copyright strikes in dispute had been reversed after technical verification and that content removed pursuant to those strikes had been restored. Meta also stated that Mr. Kumar’s accounts had not been suspended and continued to remain accessible.

Justice Bhambhani observed that concerns surrounding the misuse of copyright enforcement mechanisms appeared to be recurring across cases involving content creators and warranted closer examination. The court noted that the issue was contributing to an increasing number of disputes and litigation. The matter has been listed for September 24, when similar cases are also listed.