When a company calls us about a damaging post, one question comes before all the others: when will it come down? Comms teams get the same question from their own leadership, often within the hour. And too often they answer it with a date.
A case reported this week shows why that is a risky answer. On 12 October the Internet Freedom Foundation set out the timeline in a petition the Delhi High Court disposed of last month. A user complained to Meta’s grievance officer about a disabled Instagram account on 9 July. With no resolution, an appeal went to the Grievance Appellate Committee on 12 August. More than a month later, the GAC portal still showed it as “under process”. On 24 September the court said it expected the committee to decide within three weeks.
I am not writing about the merits of that account. The calendar is what interests me. Rule 3A(4) of the IT Rules asks the GAC to “endeavour to resolve” appeals within 30 calendar days. The rule says endeavour, and even the official appeal, which is free and fully online and which we point people to, can run past its own target. A comms head who told the CEO “two weeks” in July would have been explaining that promise for most of a quarter.
Why the ladder is slow
It’s tempting to picture removal as one request. In India it is a sequence, and each step depends on the one before it.
First comes a report to the platform’s grievance officer. Then, if the officer refuses or stays silent, an appeal to the GAC. The GAC is an appeal body, so it needs a platform decision to review. Skip the first step and there is nothing to appeal. Above that sits the civil court, with an injunction or a removal order.
And the legal notice? Plenty of companies send one first, and it sits outside the ladder. The Supreme Court settled that in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India back in 2015: platforms act on a court order or a government direction. Your lawyer’s letter isn’t either. Keep it as a record if you like. Just don’t tell the CEO it will do the job.
And some content does not belong on the ladder at all. True reporting by a legitimate outlet, a genuine customer complaint, a post that is merely unflattering: none of these is removable, and at FameNinja we say so to anyone who asks. Treating them as takedown cases wastes the weeks in which a reply would have helped.
What I would tell a comms team instead
The first job is sorting. A false and defamatory claim, a fake account in the company’s name, leaked private data, or a fair complaint that simply stings. The first three have a route, and the last one needs a public answer from you, written by you.
I’d file the platform report on day one, even when a refusal looks likely, since it’s the refusal that opens the door to the GAC. I’d also make one person own the evidence from that morning on, meaning the screenshots, the URLs with timestamps and the platform’s acknowledgement mail. Every later step asks for it, and by week three the original post may have been edited.
Then there’s the holding line. I’d draft it on the assumption that the post is still up a month later, because it probably will be, and because journalists and employees will read your line right next to it. “We have initiated legal action” ages badly when nothing visibly changes.
For the CEO, I’d draw the ladder on one page. Three steps, what each one needs, who owns it. FameNinja’s published estimate for removal or de-indexing is two to six weeks where there’s a valid ground, and we don’t guarantee removal. That range is less comforting than a date. It also survives contact with the GAC portal.
After that, report progress by step. Complaint filed. Decision received. Appeal lodged. Boring updates, and they keep the comms head believable while the process grinds on.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The views and opinions published here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the publisher.
