What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
New Delhi: Google has submitted its reply to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh regarding deleting several YouTube channels run by String Art Private Limited. The court has now directed String Art to respond within a week.
In its reply, Google contended that the writ filed against them is not maintainable. “There are no grounds warranting issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. The present dispute is a purely contractual dispute arising out of the enforcement of the Answering Respondent’s Terms of Service. The Petitioner has concealed its mala fide conduct of uploading content in violation of the platform policies, circumventing restrictions, and severely and repeatedly abusing the platform,” Google’s response stated.
Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha, speaking with The New Indian, indicated that they would soon file a counter-reply. “Google has arbitrarily suspended the YouTube account of journalist String. Both String and String Hindi have been terminated. String approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court. We have filed a writ seeking the restoration of both YouTube channels of String. Additionally, the Court has been asked to order Google to pay Rs two crore in compensation to String. The Court has now issued a notice seeking a reply from the respondents,” said Advocate Jha.
Background of the Matter:
String Art Private Limited decided to take legal action after several of its YouTube channels were removed by Google and YouTube. According to the petition, the trouble began when the petitioner published a video titled “Video: Bill Gates EXPOSED- Rockefeller Funds Fertility Vaccine SCAM I#BirthControl,” leading to a one-week suspension of the account. The footage was then reposted on “String Hindi,” after which all channels associated with the petitioner were terminated indefinitely.
ALSO READ: Kejriwal’s reports indicate weight loss, hypoglycemia – THE NEW INDIAN
The petition also claimed that the firm was prohibited from creating new channels with the same name and barred from uploading videos. It further alleged that channels unrelated to the controversial video were also terminated without justification. The petitioner argued that Google and YouTube did not inform or warn them before the removal of their channels.
