Instagram creators are losing thousands of pounds after their accounts face suspension or removal triggered by fraudulent copyright complaints. Extortionists have been systematically filing bogus claims against the Meta-owned platform, then demanding payment to withdraw them, exploiting Meta's policy that repeated strikes can result in permanent account bans.
One creator with 1.5 million followers paid a scammer $50 (£37) to restore access to his account, reasoning that Meta's official appeal process would consume weeks and cost him significantly more in lost income. The issue has now escalated to legal action in India, where a Delhi High Court proceeding has emerged over allegations that fake Instagram copyright strikes are being used to extort creators, with the court requesting responses from Meta and government authorities.
Meta acknowledged the problem in a statement to the BBC:
We understand this can be frustrating for those impacted, and our systems are designed to protect people from this happening in the first place. Following our review, we have restored the affected content and added additional protections to safeguard accounts against further attempts of this kind.
However, content creators report that Meta struggles to identify transparently fraudulent cases and that its appeals mechanism responds slowly unless users pay a monthly subscription fee for priority support.
How the extortion scheme operates
The Lost in Time History account, which shares historical photographs to over 1.5 million followers, has become a target. Its creator, Olly (who declined to provide his surname), posts images from the public domain or with explicit permission from rights holders. Yet he has received dozens of what he describes as
obviously fakecopyright complaints throughout 2026.
Meta does not verify the legitimacy of complaints at the point of filing. This means that users hit with multiple strikes in quick succession face temporary account suspension. Olly has observed a pattern: he receives strikes for several posts simultaneously, all originating from the same email address. The claimant then contacts him via the encrypted messaging application Telegram with a financial demand.
They'll demand a certain amount of moneyOlly explained, typically several hundred dollars, in exchange for withdrawing the claim. The BBC has reviewed messages from these claimants explicitly requesting payment or threatening additional copyright strikes.
Olly eventually capitulated and paid $50 in cryptocurrency to restore his temporarily suspended account, viewing it as faster than navigating Meta's lengthy appeal process. Yet immediately after payment, fresh copyright strikes arrived.
That's the worst part. Having to pay the person who's actively put you through all of that anguish only for it to happen straight away again.
The repeated strikes resulted in Olly's account being demonetised, preventing him from earning revenue from high-performing posts.
There's no investigation into abuse, or system detection [from Meta] that it could be abuse,he said.
Abin Tom Sebastian, who operates the Morbid Kuriosity account, reported a comparable experience.
Meta was not helpful throughout the entire process, forcing you to pay for support to talk, even as they claim to be here for the creator.Sebastian lost brand partnerships as a result of the disruption.
I lost irrecoverable and crucial, brand contracts that unfortunately moved ahead with another creator, and no reassurance or support from Meta saying this will not happen again.
Meta offers a Verified subscription for £9.99 monthly, which grants 24/7 access to live chat support. Many creators feel pressured into purchasing this tier to obtain timely assistance with account issues.
Who is filing these false claims?
The BBC interviewed three individuals who file copyright strikes against Instagram users despite not holding the copyrights themselves. All three appear to be based in India or nearby regions. They deny operating an extortion racket, instead claiming to file legitimate complaints on behalf of actual copyright holders.
However, the BBC obtained messages from one individual requesting $900 (£668) to withdraw a strike, with that person confirming they retain all such payments as personal income. Two others denied receiving any financial benefit.
One claimed to be sent accounts to investigate and files strikes when discovering unauthorised content use. Another said they receive target accounts or posts from account holders or their representatives. Legitimate copyright enforcement agencies do exist and operate on a contractual basis for clients, but Olly—who has dealt with authentic agencies after accidentally posting copyrighted material—notes the difference is stark.
They're established companies with millions of followers, so it's very different.
According to reporting on the Delhi High Court petition, the alleged scheme involves anonymous accounts, bot-operated profiles, and organised syndicates filing false complaints and demanding sums running into several lakhs of rupees to withdraw them. Another investigation revealed that scammers are using Facebook's edit feature to backdate posts, then triggering Meta's Rights Manager to generate strikes against the real creator.
Why is this happening now?
Copyright-based extortion schemes are not recent phenomena. Andres Guadamuz, a reader in intellectual property law at the University of Sussex and digital copyright expert, explained that earlier iterations involved emails or letters sent to website owners claiming ownership of photographs and demanding payment to avoid legal action. Similar tactics have targeted YouTube creators as well.
The recent surge in this method may stem from artificial intelligence making large-scale deployment easier.
It's a numbers game. Pretty much anyone can now deploy [AI] that is going to automate all of this in some way,Guadamuz told the BBC. Platforms managing billions of users face mounting difficulty in policing the racket and distinguishing genuine copyright claims from fraudulent ones.
The system was almost built with the assumption that the person that was making a copyright strike claim was legitimate,he said.
The abuse exploits Meta's automated copyright enforcement mechanisms and repeat-strike policies, which can trigger suspensions without immediate independent verification. A 2025 case involving an Instagram influencer in Jabalpur documented an earlier example of identical fake copyright strike extortion tactics, indicating this is not an isolated complaint.
Legal action and Meta's response
The litigation was reportedly filed by creator Nitin Joshi and seeks an investigation into the alleged cyber-extortion network. The Delhi High Court has asked Meta and government respondents to file replies to the allegations. Additionally, the court ordered Meta to disclose user data in a related fake copyright strike case, indicating the dispute is now part of active litigation.
Meta states that only copyright holders or authorised representatives can report infringement, and it advises affected users to contact rights holders directly. After the BBC presented examples from Olly and other account holders, Meta said it had applied additional protections to their accounts to prevent similar issues in the future. The company stated it actively combats deceptive behaviour designed to scam or defraud people and businesses.
What happens next
The next procedural step involves the filing and hearing of responses from the Union government, the Delhi government, and Meta to the High Court's order. The court order requiring Meta to disclose user data suggests further procedural steps in the ongoing case, though no final hearing date has been announced in available coverage.
Creators and legal experts are watching closely to see whether judicial intervention will force Meta to strengthen its verification processes, accelerate its appeals mechanism, or implement technical safeguards to prevent the systematic abuse of its copyright enforcement tools.
