In an increasingly digital world, business lawyers are witnessing a significant evolution in how defamation cases are handled, particularly when it involves online platforms. Legal professionals keeping track of these legal frameworks point to two cases that illustrate the changing dynamics of online content liability. One of them is from 2020, as discussed in an article byVaneesa Agrawal published in her firm, Thinking Legal blog page. And the other is a recent case from July, 2024. 

"The digital landscape has fundamentally transformed how we approach defamation cases," explains Vaneesa Agrawal, founder of Thinking Legal law firm. "

In December 2019, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in the case of Visaka Industries versus Google India. The case centred on an article titled "Visaka Asbestos Industries Making Gains." published on Google's platform. Business lawyers keeping an eye on the case note that while Visaka Industries sought immediate content removal, Google India requested protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

The ruling clarified the scope of intermediary liability, as business lawyers following the case explained. The Supreme Court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's criticism of Google's inaction, instead establishing that platforms need only remove content after receiving a court order.

"This judgment creates a balanced framework that protects both free speech and legitimate concerns about defamation," Vaneesa Agrawal from Thinking Legal law firm points out. "It prevents arbitrary content removal while maintaining accountability through judicial oversight."

As pointed out earlier, the case involved an article critical of Visaka Industries posted on Google's platform. Business lawyers representing Google India sought protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, while Visaka Industries argued for immediate content removal. The Supreme Court's nuanced approach protects both free speech and legitimate business interests.

More recently, in July 2024, Asian News International (ANI) filed a case against Wikipedia in the Delhi High Court, seeking ₹2 crore in damages. Business lawyers familiar with the matter explain that ANI's petition alleges "palpably false" and defamatory content on its Wikipedia page, claiming significant damage to its reputation and goodwill.

The case brings new complexity to digital defamation, as business lawyers studying the matter note, particularly given Wikipedia's unique position as a user-edited platform. The platform's protection under Section 79 of the IT Act (the Safe Harbour Clause) becomes particularly relevant here.

"Wikipedia's case differs fundamentally from traditional platforms," Vaneesa Agrawal, an expert business lawyer observes. "Its collaborative editing model raises interesting questions about content responsibility and the application of safe harbour provisions."

The IT Act defines intermediaries broadly, including various digital platforms from telecom providers to web hosting services. Business lawyers analyzing these provisions highlight that intermediaries must observe due diligence and comply with government guidelines to maintain their protection under Section 79.

"The Safe Harbour protection isn't absolute," Vaneesa Agrawal, founder of Thinking Legal, notes. "Platforms must demonstrate compliance with specific conditions, including prompt action when notified by authorities about problematic content."

Previous Supreme Court rulings have already addressed Wikipedia's role in legal matters. Business lawyers point to a 2023 case where the court cautioned against using crowd-sourced platforms like Wikipedia in legal proceedings, noting their potential for "misleading information."

"These platforms serve valuable purposes," Vaneesa Agrawal, an expert business lawyer at Thinking Legal law firm, explains, "but their user-generated nature requires careful consideration when legal interests are at stake."

The comparison between these cases reveals evolving standards for digital content liability. Business lawyers analysing both situations note that while the 2020 ruling established clear guidelines for content removal, the current Wikipedia case may further refine these standards for collaborative platforms.

Each new case helps clarify the boundaries between free expression and protection from defamation," Thinking Legal’s founder, Vaneesa Agrawal concludes. "The focus remains on finding appropriate mechanisms to address legitimate grievances while preventing misuse of takedown requests."

Butit must be noted that works for Google might not work for Wikipedia, and that's what makes these cases so important for developing jurisprudence."

Business lawyers particularly emphasize the Supreme Court's previous cautions about Wikipedia usage in legal proceedings. In a 2023 case, the court warned against relying on crowd-sourced platforms for legal dispute resolution, a point that business lawyers say adds another layer of complexity to the current case.

Looking ahead,business lawyers anticipate more such cases as digital platforms continue to evolve. The intersection of traditional defamation law with modern technology creates new challenges thatlegal professionals must address. As platforms become more sophisticated and user interaction more complex, business lawyers expect the legal framework to continue evolving.

"These cases are just the beginning," concludes Thinking Legal’s founder and an expert business lawyer, Vaneesa Agrawal. "Business lawyers will need to stay ahead of technological changes while ensuring that fundamental principles of justice and fairness are maintained in the digital age."

The ongoing development of this legal framework demonstrates how business lawyers are essential in shaping the future of digital content liability.