Journalist Prerit Chauhan says he will take YouTube to court. YouTube terminated his channel, The Quick News, and barred him from any channel where he is “repeatedly or prominently featured.”

“After 10 years in journalism, I have decided to take on @TeamYouTube Legally,” Chauhan posted on X on November 2. “A platform cannot simply terminate years of hard work, jeopardise a creator’s livelihood and refuse to provide meaningful answers.”

“I’m a journalist. Does this mean I’m being barred from pursuing my profession because my channel was terminated?” he asked in a second thread on November 3, where he shared YouTube’s emails.

PART 2/4

YouTube says I cannot create, possess or use another channel, or even be prominently featured on one. I’m a journalist. Does this mean I’m being barred from pursuing my profession because my channel was terminated?

— Prerit Chauhan (@Patrakar_Prerit) November 2, 2026

Why did YouTube terminate the channel?

YouTube rejected Chauhan’s appeal on October 30, according to an email he shared. “We reviewed your channel carefully, and have confirmed that it violates our spam, deceptive practices and scams policy,” the email said. “We won’t be putting your channel back up on YouTube.”

Chauhan then wrote to YouTube’s partner support team. Its reply said a “human specialist from the internal review team re-evaluated your content and determined that it does violate our Community Guidelines.”

“Note that we can’t respond to inquiries regarding the specific reasons for our decision,” the reply added.

What else did YouTube tell him?

In another email, partner support told Chauhan he can’t appeal again. “I’m afraid your channel is no longer eligible to file another appeal,” it said.

It also set out what he can no longer do:

  • His own channels: “You are prohibited from using, possessing, or creating any other YouTube channels.”
  • Other channels: The ban “applies to all of your existing channels, any new channels you create or acquire, and any channels in which you are repeatedly or prominently featured.”
  • Lending his channel: He is “also prohibited from letting others whose YouTube channels have been terminated use your YouTube channel to bypass their termination.”

What did Chauhan say?

  • The email: “Its language was intimidating and insensitive. Instead of addressing my concerns, YouTube is treating me like a criminal for seeking fairness and accountability,” Chauhan said. He said he received the email after his post criticising YouTube went viral.
  • His livelihood: “Does this mean I cannot join another news organisation, report news or appear on its YouTube channel? Such restrictions threaten my professional opportunities and livelihood. This is far bigger than losing a channel,” he said.
  • His offer: “I’ve offered to remove the videos in question, rectify genuine violations and start afresh. Yet, YouTube refuses a second chance,” he said.
  • Other creators: “I will be pursuing legal action and exposing the practices that leave Indian creators powerless against a platform with enormous control over their work and earnings,” he said. “This is bigger than my channel. YouTube India must be held accountable.”

What does YouTube’s policy say?

The wording in Chauhan’s email matches YouTube’s termination policy. Under that policy, creators have one year from termination to appeal and can file only two appeals in that year.

The policy doesn’t define “prominently featured.” It also doesn’t say whether the ban covers a journalist appearing on a news organisation’s channel.

YouTube’s circumvention policy says “content from creators who have been terminated is considered circumvention.” Channels that post such content can face penalties, up to termination.

Why it matters:

  • The ban follows the person: It covers any channel where Chauhan is “repeatedly or prominently featured.” Chauhan fears this could stop him from reporting for, or appearing on, a news outlet’s channel.
  • Employers could face penalties: Under the circumvention policy, a news organisation that features Chauhan could put its own channel at risk.
  • No reasons given: YouTube’s emails cite its spam policy and Community Guidelines but name no videos. YouTube also says it “can’t respond to inquiries regarding the specific reasons” for its decision.
  • No appeal left on YouTube: YouTube has told Chauhan his channel is no longer eligible to appeal. He may still be able to seek redress through YouTube’s grievance officer, the government’s appeals committee or the courts.

What can Chauhan do now?

  • Grievance officer: Under the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, platforms must appoint a grievance officer, who has 15 days to resolve a user’s complaint.
  • Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC): Users can appeal a grievance officer’s decision to the government’s GAC within 30 days. In October, the Delhi High Court held that the GAC cannot reject account suspension appeals just because a platform doesn’t share information.
  • Courts: He can also approach a court directly, as he says he will.

Has YouTube done this to journalists before?

  • Ruben Banerjee (August 2025): YouTube removed the Odia-language channel of Banerjee, the Editors Guild of India’s general secretary, citing its circumvention policy. The Guild asked YouTube to reinstate the channel and explain the takedown, exchange4media reported.
  • Media Star World (November 2023): YouTube terminated veteran journalist MA Kazmi’s channel without warning, he said. It restored the channel after the Delhi Union of Journalists appealed, The Wire reported.

What MediaNama asked YouTube:

  1. Why did YouTube terminate Chauhan’s channel, and which policies and videos did the decision rely on?
  2. How does YouTube define “prominently featured”? Does it cover a journalist appearing on a news organisation’s channel as an employee, reporter or guest?
  3. If a news organisation features Chauhan in its videos, would YouTube treat that as circumvention and penalise the organisation’s channel?
  4. Chauhan says he offered to remove the videos in question and fix any violations, and YouTube refused. Did YouTube review his appeal, and what options does he have left, including through YouTube’s grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021?
  5. Did Chauhan’s public criticism of YouTube on X play any role in the decision or in the email YouTube sent him?

We will update the story if YouTube responds.

Also Read:

The post Journalist Prerit Chauhan to sue YouTube over channel ban that extends to other channels appeared first on MEDIANAMA.