During his student days, Nazeri, along with his university colleague Shabir Hosseini Nik, reported on the situation and rights of some political prisoners, the right to education, the Chain Murders, the events and protests around the contested presidential election in 2009, Mir Hossein Mousavi, and the capture of the US Embassy in 1979, on the Islamic Association’s Telegram channel.

In 2018, Milad Nazeri and Shabir Hosseini Nik were charged in Branch 101 of Shahroud Criminal Court 2 with "participating in spreading lies with the intention of disturbing the public through the Telegram channel of the Islamic Association of Shahroud University of Technology," but according to Mohammad Ali Kamfiroozi, their lawyer, the court did not cite any example for this charge.

Kamfiroozi said: "According to Article 32 of the Constitution, the accused must be informed of the accusation immediately and clearly, stating the reasons and cases, but unfortunately, in this case, the legal charges are not declared and we do not know the details of the accusation attributed to the clients. Obviously, if no lies have been published, it is not possible to put out details about the accusation."

According to the verdict issued on January 18, 2021, each of the defendants was sentenced to 36 lashes under Article 698 of the Islamic Penal Code.

On April 22, 2021, the lawyer of Nazeri and Hosseini Nik announced on his Twitter account that the verdict was finalized in court. He called the verdict "illegal" and commented about it.

Kamfiroozi wrote that the accusation of publishing lies against his clients was made because of articles published on Telegram, therefore, a sentence should be issued based on Article 18 of the Islamic Penal Code, which does not contain the lashing punishment.

Additionally, the case was illegally examined in Criminal Court 2 while according to Article 2 of the Political Crime Law, the investigation of crimes such as spreading lies is within the jurisdiction of Criminal Court 1 and with the presence of a jury.

The third point the lawyer made with regards to the case of the two former student activists was that "the judge had no jurisdiction at all to issue a verdict due to his previous substantive comments on the case."