Update, April 22, 2026, 2:03PM: This story has been updated to include an official statement from Motorola India, received after publication.
Update, April 16, 2026, 5:15PM: This story has been updated to include responses from Apar Gupta, lawyer and founding director of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF).
Motorola Mobility India Private Limited (Motorola Mobility) has obtained an interim court order directing YouTube to block videos critical of its smartphones from being viewed in India, according to a content creator named in the suit. The order stems from a civil suit filed on 23 March 2026 in the Court of Principal City Civil and Session Judges at Bengaluru. MediaNama reviewed the pages of the plaint shared on X by @Tech_Expose987. TechCrunch first reported the suit.
Who is named: The filing names X Corp, Instagram, Google LLC (for YouTube), Facebook, Threads, and Meta Platforms as defendants, alongside 17 named YouTube channels and one John Doe defendant.
John Doe clause: The filing includes a John Doe clause, known in Indian courts as an Ashok Kumar clause, which allows Motorola to add unidentified future defendants as it identifies them. The filing suggests that any person who criticises Motorola’s products online could face legal action without prior notice. MediaNama has previously tracked how John Doe orders with ex-parte injunctions have led to collateral takedowns of unrelated content, and covered similar orders by private companies against social media posts.
Apar Gupta, lawyer and founding director of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), told MediaNama that John Doe orders were designed for piracy cases involving genuinely unidentifiable infringers, and their migration into defamation litigation marks a significant expansion of judicial remedy.
“The chilling effect operates before any creator is even named, because the order’s existence signals to the entire ecosystem that critical content carries legal exposure,” Gupta said.
Platforms faced with subsequent takedown requests citing the John Doe order, he added, will typically comply rather than litigate.
What Motorola seeks: The plaint seeks a permanent injunction restraining defendants, their agents, reviewers, critics, and “any other persons claiming through them” from:
Motorola characterises the content as a “coordinated, motivated, commercially harmful” campaign designed to create panic among consumers. It cites specific statements as defamatory: “Motorola phone exploded,” “Don’t buy Motorola phones,” and “Motorola is unsafe/blast phones.”
Motorola filed an accompanying interim injunction application on 23 March, arguing that it has established a prima facie case for urgent relief and that monetary compensation would be an inadequate remedy.
Court order in effect: YouTube creator @ParasmeSaurabh posted on X that he received a court order at 2am directing YouTube to block his videos in India, with no prior notice to creators. Two video links he cited are currently unavailable in India. The order’s date and case number are not publicly available.
Courts grant ex-parte interim injunctions, meaning orders passed without hearing the other side, only when a plaintiff establishes urgency and irreparable harm. According to @ParasmeSaurabh’s post, the order came without prior notice to creators, meaning defendants had no opportunity to contest the takedowns before they took effect.
In a reply to @ParasmeSaurabh’s post, YouTube creator Techno Ruhez (@AmreliaRuhez) posted on X that he spoke to Motorola’s senior management, who told him the notice was “a mistake from their 3rd party social/ORM agency” and that they are actively working on fixing it.
Gupta told MediaNama that defendants have two primary routes to challenge the order. They can file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) before the same court seeking vacation or modification of the ex-parte order, on grounds that they were not heard or that the balance of convenience has been misapplied.
They can also appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) to the High Court against the grant of injunction. Where content is truthful, fair comment, or first-person experience, defendants can invoke the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bloomberg v. Zee against pre-trial injunctions in defamation matters.
“The practical difficulty is cost and capacity, because many named creators are individuals without counsel,” Gupta said.
360-plus URLs, posts going back to 2019: The plaint’s annexure lists over 360 URLs across YouTube and X, with upload dates going as far back as 2019, meaning Motorola seeks to suppress content that has existed for up to seven years. View counts range from under 100 to over six lakh. Named channels include Technology Secrets, Bhavesh Rai, TechZen, Kunal Malhotra, SparkNherd, and Bijnori Tech, among others.
The annexure targets not only videos alleging safety defects but also unfavourable reviews and user commentary, bundling both categories into a single injunction application.
Gupta further added that naming every major platform alongside individual creators strips safe harbour from the outset of litigation rather than at its end. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Section 79 immunity is lost only upon receipt of a court order or a properly issued government notification. By suing the platforms directly and obtaining an ex-parte order, the plaintiff converts a process meant to test content on its merits into a one-shot removal mechanism.
“The rational platform response is compliance, because testing the order means betting their statutory immunity on contested speech,” Gupta said.
The structural consequence, he added, is that intermediary liability doctrine, which the Supreme Court carefully calibrated to protect user speech, gets bypassed through civil procedure.
Direct challenge to platform safe harbour: By naming all major platforms simultaneously, Motorola directly challenges the safe harbour protection platforms hold under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Section 79 protects intermediaries, meaning platforms that host user-generated content, from liability as long as they follow due diligence norms. Naming them as co-defendants argues that they are active participants in the alleged defamation rather than neutral intermediaries.
If the Bengaluru court accepts Motorola’s argument, it sets a precedent that hosting and recommending critical content could strip platforms of safe harbour protection, providing a template for consumer electronics brands in India to use litigation as a content moderation tool.
The suit arrives as MeitY‘s draft Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2026 propose making compliance with government advisories mandatory for platforms to retain Section 79 protections. Critics including the Software Freedom Law Centre India (Software Freedom Law Centre) and the IFF have warned that the proposed changes incentivise platforms to over-remove content rather than risk losing immunity. A court ruling eroding Section 79 in a private defamation suit could compound that pressure.
Gupta added that while the IT Rules architecture and the civil defamation route run on parallel tracks, they converge on the same outcome. “They structurally incentivise over-removal of online criticism, with the user whose speech is taken down having the least effective remedy of any party in the system,” he said.
What creators say: Two creators named in the suit told TechCrunch they learned about the case only after X’s support team emailed them stating that the suit referenced their accounts. One said the post Motorola cited related to a verified incident, and that Motorola had itself replaced the device in question. “Brand is just mentally harassing us, and they want to set an example,” the creator said, adding the suit would affect their coverage of the brand.
What industry says: Sunil Raina, Managing Director of smartphone brand Lava International, posted on X: “When faced with criticism, you have two choices: intimidate or improve. One silences the feedback. The other silences the need for it.”
Madhav Sheth, Chief Executive Officer of smartphone brand Artificial Intelligence Plus (AI+) and former Realme India head, took a different position. He posted on X that: “freedom of speech is not a license for defamation” and warned that any platform or individual found spreading fake news or unverified claims would face immediate legal action. He added that AI+ could produce money trails to prove its case legally if needed.
Questions sent to Motorola India:
Motorola India sent MediaNama the following statement:
“Motorola has a long-standing commitment to consumer safety, product quality, and open dialogue with the communities we serve. We welcome honest feedback from consumers, reviewers, and content creators.
Recently, Motorola India, in the interest of public safety, initiated legal action against posts and videos containing demonstrably false claims that Motorola devices have exploded or caught fire in circumstances where no such incidents occurred. These fabricated allegations have the potential to cause unwarranted public alarm and harm consumers who rely on accurate information when making purchasing decisions.
Motorola does not seek to suppress legitimate product reviews, consumer feedback, or critical commentary, and we are committed to resolving product issues promptly and fairly through our customer service channels.
We are actively reviewing the scope of the current proceedings, and Motorola extends its sincere apologies to the creators affected inadvertently by this matter.”
The statement narrows Motorola’s justification to safety-related false claims, but the plaint’s annexure targets unfavourable reviews and commentary alongside safety allegations, with content going back to 2019. It does not address the John Doe clause or the claim by Techno Ruhez that a third party agency filed the suit without Motorola’s full knowledge. The phrase “actively reviewing the scope” suggests a potential narrowing or partial withdrawal, but no timeline or specifics were provided.
MediaNama sent queries to Motorola India via its press contact form and has reached out to YouTube, the IFF, and a named creator for comment. The story will be updated upon receiving responses.
Also read:
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。