Centre Puts Meta’s Recommendation Algorithms Under IT Law Scrutiny

The Centre has intensified scrutiny of Meta’s recommendation algorithms, questioning whether systems that decide what content users see and promote can remain compatible with the company’s status as an intermediary under India’s Information Technology Act.

The government’s examination comes amid concerns over deepfakes, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), unlabelled synthetic content, bots and algorithmic amplification. Officials are particularly examining whether Meta’s systems, by determining “what content is shown to whom”, could amount to selecting third-party information and potentially affect the company’s eligibility for Section 79 safe-harbour protection.

Section 79 provides intermediaries conditional protection from liability for third-party content. However, Section 79(2)(b)(iii) requires that an intermediary does not “select or modify” information contained in a transmission, while Section 79(2)(c) makes compliance with prescribed due-diligence requirements a condition for protection.

The Centre has therefore questioned whether Meta’s personalised feeds, recommendation systems and paid content promotion go beyond merely hosting user-generated material. Under Rule 4(3) of the IT Rules, significant social-media intermediaries must clearly identify content whose visibility or prominence is increased for direct financial benefit as advertised, marketed or sponsored.

The government has also pressed Meta over the continued circulation of harmful AI-generated material after it has been flagged. The 2026 amendments to the IT Rules impose additional safeguards for synthetic content, including declaration, verification and prominent labelling requirements. Knowingly permitting, promoting or failing to act on specified prohibited synthetic information can constitute a failure of due diligence.

Officials have additionally demanded stronger human oversight of automated moderation, with better understanding of Indian languages and local contexts. Rules governing significant social-media intermediaries also require proactive measures against CSAM and human oversight of such automated detection systems.

The scrutiny has extended to sudden content and account restrictions. Where platforms independently remove information, the Rules provide for user notification, reasons for removal, an opportunity to dispute the decision and grievance mechanisms. Separately, Section 79(3)(b) can remove safe-harbour protection where an intermediary fails to act expeditiously after legally recognised actual knowledge of unlawful content.

Meta has apologised for the temporary restriction of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Facebook post and acknowledged serious content-moderation concerns, while assuring the government that it is taking corrective measures. The company has not, however, accepted that its recommendation systems make it a publisher under Indian law.

The Centre has said its objective is compliance, not censorship. It will review Meta’s corrective measures and may seek legal opinion before deciding further action. Other major platforms could also face similar scrutiny.

The key unresolved question remains whether algorithmic selection and amplification are compatible with the intermediary protections granted under Section 79.