Meta has stepped up enforcement against child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on its platforms in India following discussions with the Indian government, according to government sources cited by PTI.

The development comes after growing scrutiny of how major social media platforms detect and remove illegal content involving children. Indian officials have told Meta that intermediary safe-harbor protections cannot be treated as a shield when platforms fail to comply with Indian law.

Government sources said officials have already seen action on the CSAM issue following their discussions with the company.

Why is India pushing Meta on CSAM?

The latest discussions follow concerns over the presence and promotion of child sexual abuse material on social media platforms, including reports involving Instagram.

Meta itself acknowledged in July that reports had raised concerns about Instagram advertisements in India that violated its policies against child exploitation. The company said it had removed additional advertisements, disabled accounts and blocked URLs connected to policy-violating content after investigating the cases.

Meta said that, during the six months preceding its July statement, its enforcement efforts had resulted in the removal of 160,000 accounts in India linked to child exploitation concerns. Globally, the company said it removed 13 million pieces of child sexual exploitation content from Facebook and Instagram between October and December 2025, with more than 96% identified proactively before users reported it.

The divs highlight the scale of the problem, but they also explain why governments are demanding increasingly sophisticated detection and reporting systems from platforms.

What did the Indian government tell Meta?

According to government sources cited by PTI, officials made clear that safe-harbor protection would not apply when a platform violates Indian laws.

Safe harbor generally protects online intermediaries from being held automatically liable for content posted by their users, provided they meet applicable legal requirements.

In India’s case, that protection operates within the framework of the Information Technology Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules.

The government’s position signals that compliance with India’s legal requirements remains central to whether platforms can rely on intermediary protections.

What action has Meta taken?

Meta has not publicly released a new India-specific enforcement program tied directly to the latest government discussions.

However, the company has previously outlined several measures it uses to combat child exploitation.

These include:

• Automated systems designed to identify potentially violating content.
• Human review and enforcement.
• Removal of accounts involved in child exploitation.
• Blocking links to websites hosting prohibited material.
• Sharing intelligence with other technology companies.
• Reporting apparent child exploitation to law enforcement through established channels.

Meta said it reports apparent child exploitation globally through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or NCMEC, in accordance with applicable law. For India, the company said reports are made to the national cybercrime reporting system in compliance with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and related rules.

What is the government reviewing about WhatsApp usernames?

The CSAM issue is not the only point of friction between New Delhi and Meta.

The Indian government is also reviewing WhatsApp’s username policy, according to the latest reports.

The proposed username system has raised questions about how users can be identified, how usernames could be exploited by scammers and whether criminals could use the feature to make investigations more difficult.

Government officials have previously raised concerns with Meta over the rollout and potential misuse of WhatsApp usernames.

The review appears to be part of a wider examination of how new platform features interact with India’s cybersecurity and law-enforcement requirements.

Is India trying to censor social media platforms?

The government says its approach is focused on legal compliance rather than blanket censorship.

Officials have emphasized that constitutional protections for freedom of speech are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Those restrictions can apply to certain categories of unlawful or harmful content and to commercial activity regulated under Indian law.

The distinction is important because the government’s approach is not simply about removing controversial speech. It is also concerned with ensuring that platforms operating in India follow laws covering areas such as child safety, cybercrime and intermediary responsibilities.

Why is the issue significant for Meta?

India is one of Meta’s largest and most important markets.

The company operates Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads in the country and has invested heavily in expanding its technology and infrastructure presence.

That makes regulatory compliance particularly important as Indian authorities increase scrutiny of how global platforms moderate content and respond to law-enforcement requirements.

Meta has also publicly emphasized its commitment to India and has continued expanding its infrastructure and partnerships in the country.

Why is CSAM particularly difficult to combat online?

Child sexual abuse material presents a unique challenge because offenders frequently attempt to evade automated detection by changing files, using private groups, moving between platforms or directing users to external websites.

Meta says its systems use technology to proactively detect violating content, but the company has also acknowledged that offenders continually attempt to evade detection.

That means removing individual pieces of content is only one part of the problem.

Platforms also need to identify accounts involved in distributing the material, prevent repeat uploads, block external links and cooperate with law enforcement.

Cross-platform cooperation has become increasingly important because offenders can move from one service to another when enforcement becomes more effective on a particular platform.

What happens next?

The latest government pressure suggests that scrutiny of Meta and other major technology companies in India is likely to continue.

Officials are examining not only illegal content but also product features, platform policies and the broader question of how international companies should comply with India’s legal framework.

For Meta, the immediate challenge is to demonstrate that its enforcement systems can prevent and respond to child exploitation while also meeting India’s regulatory requirements.

For users, the developments could lead to stronger moderation, additional reporting mechanisms and changes to certain platform features.

The larger issue is becoming increasingly clear: India’s relationship with global technology companies is moving beyond content moderation alone and toward a broader debate over accountability, platform design and compliance with local law.