Over the past few months, SFLC.in has engaged in an empirical analysis backed by research driven data on the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), an online dispute resolution mechanism. The entire appeal process, from filing to decision, is in digital mode. Our experience with the GAC has shown that it is a unique dispute resolution platform that provides quick remedy, ease of appealing, and binding decisions. In Part II of this series, we will analyse a case study of one of our appeals. Part III will focus on our current appeals on violent content on platforms, and the insights we have received from our experiences.
This blogpost discussed a GAC appeal filed against the platform YouTube. In May 2025, SFLC.in was approached by a YouTuber (SH) seeking legal assistance regarding the termination of his YouTube channel on the grounds of a copyright violation. This was compounded by the procedural inability to submit a corrected DMCA counter-notification due to system restrictions.
Facts of the Matter
On March 22, SH’s YouTube channel received 6 copyright strikes simultaneously. However, YouTube Studio did not provide any details, only a message saying “info available on request.” SH contacted YouTube Support and the Legal team multiple times, but only received generic replies citing “copyright infringement,” without identifying the exact content or timestamps involved.
On March 27, SH submitted a counter-notification in good faith, believing the claims were either mistaken or misidentified. He stated in the counter that he had created the content on his channel himself or used publicly available material under fair use.
YouTube acknowledged his counter-notification and said that it was sent to the claimant (antipiracy@aiplex.com). They also said that if no legal action was taken within 10 business days, the content would be restored.
However, on April 4, SH received an email stating: “It appears that you do not have the necessary rights to post the content on YouTube. Therefore, we regretfully cannot honor your request.”
Later, SH was told by YouTube support that the real reason for the rejection was an incomplete address in the counter-notification. He was advised:
“Counter notifications must include a complete and valid mailing address (including building). Please resubmit with complete information.”
But when he attempted to resubmit the corrected information, the system blocked him with the error: “Not eligible – already reviewed” This procedural anomaly completely blocked his ability to submit a valid counter-notification, leaving him with no recourse.
When SH approached us in May, the situation was:
YouTube had terminated his channel and blocked all communication paths.
He was either ignored or blocked by YouTube Partner Support, the Legal Team, and TeamYouTube on Twitter.
He never received any legal notice or formal takedown response from the original claimant.
He was not given a fair opportunity to fix what was a technical mistake (incomplete address).
SFLC.in’s Initial Efforts
When SH approached SFLC.in, we considered this to be a matter of copyright, rather than a matter of platform accountability. Our initial efforts were thus spent analysing the content that was posted on the Channel, trying to understand the process of filing counter-notifications in regard to fair use on YouTube, and trying to contact the Claimant party, who had issued the copyright strikes.
We also decided to re-file a counter notification through email, with the correct address (something noted to be absent in the first counter notification filed) and also in good faith engage with YouTube to see whether the procedural issues of submitting a counter notification on their portal could be circumvented in this instance.
It was the marked silence of YouTube’s team that led us to consider filing a Grievance Officer report, and which directed our attention to the potential of filing a GAC Appeal in this issue. On 20th June, 2025, we filed the appeal.
GAC Appeal
Subject / Keyword / Tag / Specific provision in the law (Max 100 Characters)* (if you can specify the specific clause in the Act/Rules, please enter the provisions for expedite disposal of your appeal)
Copyright Strike, Counter Notification, Rule 3(2), IT Rules 2021, Section 52, Copyright Act, 1971
Brief of Complaint (Max 1000 Characters)*
On March 22, my YouTube channel received 6 copyright strikes simultaneously. However the exact content or timestamps that were allegedly infringing were not identified.
On March 27, I submitted a counter notification believing the claims were either mistaken or misidentified. YouTube acknowledged my counter-notification and said it was sent to the claimant (antipiracy@aiplex.com).
On April 4, my counter notification was rejected. I was told by YouTube support that this was due to an incomplete address in the counter-notification. However when I attempted to resubmit the corrected information, the system blocked me with the error “Not eligible – already reviewed”.
This has blocked my ability to submit a valid counter-notification denying me my legal right to respond under the DMCA. YouTube has now terminated my channel. I have contacted the grievance officer, but have received no recourse.
Justification for invoking the ground for appeal (max. 250 words)*
I am preferring this appeal under rule 3A of the IT Rules 2021, as the intermediary (Google) has failed to resolve my grievance within the prescribed timeframe of 15 days as under Rule 3(2)(i) of the IT Rules, 2021, and has not acted upon a DMCA counter-notification filed in response to an unsubstantiated copyright claim.
I have not violated any copyright or intellectual property rights. My content was either original, or fair dealing under Section 52 (1)(ii) of the Copyright Act 1957. I have been provided no grounds for the copyright strike, and no further information from the Intermediary’s Grievance Officer on what parts of my content were allegedly violating the Complainant’s copyright,
Despite multiple appeals, and full compliance with YouTube’s policies, my channel has been disabled. As my channel has been disabled, I have been given no recourse to re-submit DMCA counter notifications, and have received no response from YouTube’s Grievance Officer regarding making the same available to me.
This constitutes a denial of due process, a breach of my digital rights, and non-compliance by the intermediary with Section 3(2)(i) of the IT Rules, 2021.
Relief Sought Details (Max 500 Characters)*
I humbly request the following-
That my channel (____) be made available again.
That I be allowed to resubmit a valid counter- notification against the copyright strikes on my content.
That I be provided with valid grounds of the complaint made against my content, including any legal action taken, if any.
That I be provided fair compensation for the monetary loss caused by the disablement of my channel by the Intermediary for the duration of this process.
Outcome
This was one of the first few instances of SFLC.in approaching the GAC, and we did not expect much. SH and our team had spent a collective 3 months trying to figure out a way out of the situation.
It took the GAC all of 4 days.
On 24th June, SH’s YouTube channel was restored, with no copyright strikes, and to our surprise, with ad revenue that he had earnt, intact.
Analysis
The Grievance Appellate Committee is an online dispute resolution portal, as described in Part I of this blog series. While it has not yet become mainstream, our experience in this case shows just how relevant and impactful it can be in a situation where other modes of grievance redressal offered by platforms fail users. In this particular instance, YouTube was contacted by the user and SFLC.in multiple times, with a simple request to provide means to submit a valid counter-notification. Despite regular emails, outreach over social media, and even Grievance Officer reports, no outcome was achieved.
The Grievance Appellate Committee steps in here as a mechanism to hold Big Tech accountable, and to protect user rights. From conversations we have had with stakeholders, one of the usual outcomes is that the appealed content/channel is restored within a period of 15 days, with or without an accompanying order. The GAC can be a great equalizer here, ensuring that individual user’s rights are not sacrificed at the altar of Big Tech. By having binding adjudicatory decisions enforced in a specified timeline, the GAC takes the guesswork out of grievance redressal. It ensures that complaints which might have earlier gone entirely unaddressed, at least get visibility.
SFLC.in lauds the idea behind the formulation of the GAC, while being cautiously optimistic of the process. At the outset, we would hope to have more transparency from this mechanism, with orders being made public- either on the GAC website or on platforms websites. This would ensure that such a mechanism, which can be beneficial to all users enters the mainstream.
