YouTube’s monetisation agreement challenged in Bombay HC; Tech giant asked to submit reply

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued directions to YouTube-owned by Google LLC- and the State of Maharashtra to file their replies in a writ petition challenging the legality of YouTube’s monetisation agreements with content creators.

During today’s hearing before Hon’ble Justice Kamal Khata, the court directed both YouTube and the State of Maharashtra to file their affidavits-in-reply by September 8, with rejoinders to be submitted by September 22. The matter is next scheduled for hearing on September 29.

The petition, filed by former IPS officer and advocate Yogesh Pratap Singh, alleges that the platform’s agreements violate Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as they do not provide direct financial consideration to creators and are therefore required to be registered and stamped under Indian law.

At the heart of the dispute is YouTube’s “Right to Monetize” clause, which allows the platform to run advertisements on user-generated content without necessarily sharing ad revenue unless the creator is part of the YouTube Partner Program (YPP). According to Singh, this creates a “zero-compensation arrangement” for a large section of creators, raising serious compliance concerns.

“YouTube’s contract grants the platform full rights to monetise my client’s content but doesn’t entitle him to any payments,” Adv. Aditya Pratap, Founder of Aditya Pratap Law Offices, who is representing Y.P. Singh in the case told e4m.

“Since such a contract is devoid of monetary consideration, it is void under Section 25 unless it is executed as a deed and duly registered with applicable stamp duty. YouTube has failed to do this,” he noted.

The petition also accuses the Collector of Stamps and the Inspector General of Registration of failing to enforce mandatory registration and stamp duty collection on such agreements. Singh’s counsel contends that while YouTube’s creator contracts may number in the millions, the state already has the technical infrastructure to deploy an online mechanism for seamless registration and compliance.

Legal experts believe that the outcome could set a precedent with far-reaching consequences for digital platforms and content creators in India.

“This could be a watershed moment for the country’s creator economy,” said a senior technology lawyer, requesting anonymity. “If courts mandate registration and stamp duty for agreements that lack direct compensation, platforms like YouTube, Meta, and others will be forced to revisit their contractual frameworks and potentially revamp monetisation models.”

Another digital policy researcher added, “This case isn’t just about YouTube — it could reshape how platform governance, creator rights, and taxation norms evolve in India’s digital ecosystem.”

As of publication, Google’s response is awaited.

The case is being closely tracked by stakeholders across the creator economy, legal, and tech-policy ecosystems, given its potential to redefine platform-creator dynamics in the country.

Notably, YouTube earned over $35 billion in global advertising revenue in 2024, a figure that underscores the stakes for both creators and regulators.