Intermediaries must remove ex-facie fake content while requiring judicial orders for takedowns and disclosing user credentials.

The Appellant, Info Edge India Ltd, operates 'AmbitionBox', a platform hosting third-party reviews and salary insights regarding various employers

The Respondent, SynapseIndia Outsourcing Pvt Ltd, filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and defamation due to negative, allegedly fake reviews posted anonymously on the platform

On 15.01.2026, the District Judge granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant from using the Respondent's trade name and directing the removal of reviews within 36 hours of a request

The Appellant challenged this order, asserting its status as an "intermediary" entitled to safe harbor under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, and arguing that the injunction constituted a pre-trial gag order

During the appellate proceedings, the parties agreed to settle the suit based on a series of undertakings provided by the Appellant

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides "safe harbor" protection to intermediaries

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, specifically Rule 3(1)(b) regarding the removal of problematic content

Section 72A of the IT Act, 2000, regarding the disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract

Procedural standards for interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 2 of the CPC

The Court did not adjudicate upon the merits of the "intermediary" status, instead opting to resolve the dispute through a consent-based decree.

The analysis focused on the Appellant’s ten-point undertaking, which balanced the Respondent's proprietary rights with the platform's functionality.

The Appellant agreed to use the Respondent's marks solely as identifiers

The Appellant established a two-tier removal process: (i) immediate removal of "ex-facie fake" reviews or confidential information (e.g., source codes), and (ii) removal of other content only upon court orders or government notifications

Regarding anonymity, the Court accepted the Appellant’s submission that user credentials (IP addresses and timestamps) would be provided to the Respondent only upon an order from an Executing Court

The Court found this arrangement sufficient to protect the Respondent's reputation while preserving the Appellant’s operational model.

With the consent of the parties, the suit was decreed in favor of the Respondent in terms of the Appellant’s undertakings

The Appellant was directed to start the Respondent’s page on a "clean slate"

The Court held that the Respondent is entitled to seek execution of the decree in the event of a breach or to obtain user credentials for "at-issue content"

The Court left the legal question of the Appellant’s status as an "intermediary" open, ensuring no issue estoppel would apply in future disputes

The Appellant was directed to file a formal affidavit from its senior management affirming these undertakings within two weeks