Virtual Reality Question: Who governs the avatars on Metaverse?

Recently, the avatar of a female beta tester on Meta’s virtual reality platform, Horizon World, was groped by a stranger, which led Meta to initiate a probe. The day is not far when all of us will be living virtual lives in a Metaverse space and such troubling incidents may not be infrequent. The Management Consultancy firm Gartner reports that 25 per cent of people will spend an hour per day in the Metaverse by 2026 for work, shopping, education, and entertainment, while 30 per cent of organisations will have products and services ready for the Metaverse. It seems that we are poised for a huge takeover of real life by virtual life. But is our legal system ready for it?

While defying precise definitions, the metaverse is generally regarded as a network of 3-D virtual worlds where people can interact, do business, and forge social connections through their virtual “avatars”. Imagine a world where you could have a beachside conversation with your colleagues, take meeting notes while floating around a space station, or teleport from your office in Goa to Delhi, all without taking a step outside your front door. Feeling under pressure with too many meetings scheduled today? Then why not send your AI-enabled digital twin instead to take the load off your shoulders?

Within the metaverse, you can make friends, rear virtual pets, design virtual fashion items, buy virtual real estate, attend events, create and sell digital art — and earn money to boot. For instance, with NextMeet’s immersive platform, employee digital avatars can pop in and out of virtual offices and meeting rooms in real-time, walk up to a virtual help desk, give a live presentation from the dais, relax with colleagues in a networking lounge, or roam a conference centre or exhibition using a customisable avatar.

However, be it the virtual world or the real world, where humans interact with each other, disputes do arise and we have to make laws to be ready for this.

In some offences, the human body is the primary target. It does not seem that these offences can be committed by a user in the Metaverse as the users do not carry their bodies into the Metaverse.

However, some offences do not require the physical existence of humans. The modesty of a woman can be hurt in the Metaverse, for instance, by a male avatar’s gestures towards a female avatar. Similarly, offences such as outraging the religious sentiments of any class, stalking, and criminal intimidation do not require the physical presence of the victim. The primary target in such offences is the human mind. Such offences can be committed in the Metaverse because the users carry their minds into this realm. Similarly, civil disputes such as copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and property issues can arise without requiring the physical existence of the person.

It’s the avatars that cause offences and give rise to disputes in the Metaverse. Is it possible to identify which user carries civil liability or has actually committed an offence through the avatar? Establishing the identity of the offender is necessary because the law would take its recourse only against the human body — not the avatar. But how would an investigation agency trace the actual preparator? This predicament can be resolved only if the metaspace provider keeps track of every action of all avatars on its space – though it seems quite difficult now – and enables all users to gather information about the identity of the user who is controlling that avatar. But then this would raise privacy-related concerns.

Then comes the issue of jurisdiction over such offences. In civil disputes, the jurisdiction (governed by Section 16-20 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in India) lies where the subject property lies or where the defendant resides or works or where the cause of action arises. Since the Metaverse has no physical location, the options of filing at the place where the subject property lies or where the cause of action arises are lost. Thus, if two people from different states face a property dispute in the Metaverse, the option available for the aggrieved person would be to file it at the location of the defendant. However, in criminal offences, the victim can file the complaint at his or her own location (by virtue of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

In the real world, investigation relies on sketches, witnesses’ statements and medical examination of the victim. However, in the Metaverse, the victim does not have an opportunity to see the face of the offender, engage avatars as witnesses or get himself or herself medically examined to corroborate allegations. Again, this can be resolved only if the Metaspace provider keeps the track of every action of all avatars on its space and allows users to gather information regarding the identity of the actual user who is controlling that avatar

As a society, we have been grappling with issues arising from the use of social media, the internet and gaming. Such experiences become more immersive in the Metaverse. Therefore, the issues will need to be debated much more intensively. As the Metaverse gets closer to imitating the physical world, the damage (psychological, emotional, and even physical) could become ever more real. The Metaverse is coming faster than we think and we need to ensure our laws are ready for it.

The writer is a final year law student at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi