that they are not publishers of the content, which has been created by a third party and uploaded on www.youtube.com. The said content is neither created nor controlled nor owned by the platforms and is accessed on the Internet on an ‗as is‘ basis. Google and YouTube claim that they have complied with the order dated 24th January, 2019 and disabled the web links / URLs to the extent they related to India. The said paragraph is relevant and is extracted herein below: “4. Without prejudice to the submissions made herein it is submitted that the answering Defendants have duly complied with the order dated 24.01.2019 passed by this Hon‘ble Court and the Defendant No. 3 has duly disabled the web links/URLs complained of by the Plaintiffs in the present matter, to the extent that they pertained to YouTube (hereinafter, ―Impugned URLs‖) from the country domain.‖ 37. Insofar as the prayer as to blocking and restriction of access to all other media in control of the Defendants is concerned, their stand is that such blocking would be contrary to the “established principles of defamation law” and Section 79 of the IT Act. 38. As per the basic terms and conditions of YouTube, a user has to contractually agree to the following three documents: i. YouTube‟s Terms of Service; ii. Google‟s Privacy Policy; iii. YouTube‟s Community Guidelines. 39. These are binding on every user, who gives various representations and warranties. Only the uploader has specific knowledge of the content of the video, and the platforms are mere intermediaries. Thus, no liability can be fastened upon them. YouTube claims that it provides for a “robust, easyCS (OS) 27/2019 Page 34 of 76