Meta platform accountability is now being tested in a South Asian courtroom after cybercrime police in Hyderabad, India, registered cases against Meta Platforms and personally named the company’s India head, Arun Srinivas, over content circulating on Facebook and Instagram. The case is drawing attention across the region, including in Pakistan, where regulators signed a fresh content governance deal with Meta just weeks before.
What Happened in Hyderabad
Hyderabad police registered a case against Meta India chief Arun Srinivas, and the deputy commissioner of police for cybercrime said police were preparing to send a formal notice to Meta Platforms in connection with the matter.
Hyderabad’s cybercrime police registered two cases against operators of several Facebook and Instagram accounts. Meta’s India head was named as a co-accused under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act.
The case was registered following a complaint that several Facebook and Instagram posts shared during protests over an alleged exam paper leak contained content that promoted misinformation and could affect public harmony.
Police said fraudsters and bad actors had also been using AI-generated videos of well-known personalities to mislead users on Meta’s platforms. This second layer of the complaint, covering AI-driven scams, is the part that most directly affects ordinary users in both India and Pakistan.
Srinivas, Meta’s managing director for India since July 2025, has been named personally in a move that is unusual for a senior executive at a global technology company, and the reason for naming him directly was not immediately clear.
Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Meta Platform Accountability and the AI Scam Problem
Beyond the political content angle, the Hyderabad cybercrime unit had already called Meta in separately over AI-generated investment scam videos. A Meta representative appeared before the Hyderabad Cybercrime Police on Tuesday, July 28, in response to an earlier notice, with police saying the meeting was called after multiple cyber fraud cases in which victims collectively lost crores of rupees by trusting fake advertisements and posts on Meta platforms.
Police said they showed the Meta representative several examples of such frauds and asked the company to send its technical team to explain the safeguards currently in place to prevent such cases.
This is the key gap most coverage of this story misses: the notices are not just about political speech. They target a concrete, everyday harm, fake investment ads powered by AI-generated celebrity videos, that costs ordinary people real money. The same type of scam is very common on Pakistani Facebook feeds too.
Pakistan Is Watching and Already Acting
Pakistan’s own push for Meta platform accountability took a formal step on 22 July 2026, just days before the Hyderabad notices made headlines. The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority and Meta signed a Letter of Intent to establish a collaborative framework for promoting youth online safety, digital literacy, and the responsible use of digital platforms, with the collaboration also supporting open dialogue to foster a shared understanding of content safety practices in Pakistan.
PTA and Meta agreed to work together on capacity building, policy dialogue, awareness campaigns, and the exchange of global best practices related to youth online safety. The move is also meant to facilitate engagement on online content governance, regulatory compliance, and initiatives aimed at strengthening digital safety across Pakistan.
But the deal is a Letter of Intent, not a binding law. Critics have already pointed out that it places little enforceable duty on Meta. The gap between advisories and legislation is a documented pattern, with PTA’s first visible output from the partnership placing the burden on parents rather than platforms.
The numbers show why this matters. Over the past year alone, the PTA filed over 150,000 complaints directly with Meta. Following direct PTA interventions, average compliance across platforms jumped from 30 percent to 64 percent. That is progress, but it also means roughly one in three complaints still goes unresolved.
You can track PTA’s official complaints and regulatory updates at pta.gov.pk. Meta’s own safety policies and tools are published at Meta’s safety centre.
Why Naming Executives Changes the Equation
The Hyderabad case sets a notable precedent. When a local court can name a company’s country head as a co-accused in a criminal case, it signals that platform companies can no longer treat local legal notices as purely procedural. Senior executives, not just corporate legal teams, now face personal risk.
Pakistan’s law has not yet gone that far. The PTA-Meta deal is cooperative in tone. But the PECA (Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act) does allow Pakistan’s courts to compel cooperation from platforms, and regulators have at times blocked services when companies did not respond. The Indian model, where a named individual faces court proceedings, is a step beyond that.
For Pakistani users, the practical question is simple: if Meta is slow to act on scam ads in India even after a police notice, what happens when a Pakistani falls for a similar fake investment video on Facebook? Right now, the answer largely depends on whether PTA’s new partnership with Meta produces real action or just more awareness campaigns.
What Happens Next
In India, the investigation is ongoing, and updates are expected as more details emerge. Police are working to collect digital evidence and identify those responsible for creating and circulating the content.
In Pakistan, the PTA-Meta deal is new and untested. The real measure of Meta platform accountability in this country will come when a serious cybercrime case, whether an AI scam or harassment, is reported to Meta under the new framework, and observers can check whether Meta responds faster and more completely than it did before the deal was signed.
For now, both countries are in the enforcement phase: agreements have been made, notices have been sent, and the pressure on big social media companies to act locally is clearly rising across South Asia.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was named in the Hyderabad cybercrime case against Meta?
Hyderabad police registered a case against Meta India chief Arun Srinivas over Facebook and Instagram content. Police invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act, naming account operators and Meta’s India head as co-accused.
What is the PTA-Meta deal and what does it cover?
The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority and Meta signed a Letter of Intent to enhance online safety for young people in Pakistan. Under the agreement, the two organizations will collaborate on issues related to online content safety and work to strengthen institutional capacity in Pakistan. The deal is not a law, but a cooperation framework.
How well does Meta currently cooperate with Pakistan’s PTA?
Meta’s messaging app WhatsApp boasts the highest cooperation among major platforms, executing actions on 98 percent of received complaints. However, overall compliance with PTA requests across Meta’s platforms has been uneven, and Pakistani security officials are formally reviewing Meta’s lack of cooperation in eliminating local cybercrimes, with the PTA having filed over 150,000 complaints directly with Meta in the past year alone.
Can Pakistani courts also name social media executives personally in cases?
Pakistan’s existing law under PECA does allow courts to compel platforms to cooperate and regulators can block services for non-compliance. However, personally naming a foreign company’s country head as a criminal co-accused, as done in Hyderabad, India, is a step Pakistan’s legal system has not formally taken yet. The PTA-Meta Letter of Intent leans on cooperation rather than criminal liability.
