The Indian government’s decision to temporarily restrict Telegram and disable its message editing feature marks an unprecedented escalation in its response to the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak controversy. 

Acting on recommendations from the National Testing Agency (NTA), the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has blocked access to the messaging platform until June 22 and ordered it to disable message editing in India until the end of the month. The measures are directly linked to the fallout from the cancellation of the NEET-UG 2026 examination, the first time the national medical entrance test has been scrapped since the NTA took over its administration in 2019. 

While authorities argue the restrictions are necessary to combat organised cheating networks and the spread of fabricated “paper leak” claims, the move has raised wider questions about intermediary liability, the government’s blocking powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act), and whether the restrictions meet constitutional standards of necessity and proportionality.

IFF statement: The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) criticised the government’s action against Telegram in a statement on June 16, 2026, describing it as a “band-aid solution” that is both disproportionate and ineffective in addressing examination fraud. In a detailed statement, the organisation raised several concerns:

• Questioning the legal basis: IFF argued that Section 69A allows the blocking of specific content, not entire platforms, and questioned the legal authority for disabling Telegram’s message-editing feature.
• Arguing that less restrictive options existed: The group noted that the NTA itself credited channel, group and bot takedowns with containing the harm, suggesting targeted measures were already working.
• Highlighting inconsistencies: IFF pointed to the NTA’s statements that no paper had leaked outside the secured examination chain and that exam security remained unaffected, arguing this weakens the case for a platform-wide restriction.
• Warning of collateral impact: The organisation said the block affects lakhs of legitimate users, including students who rely on Telegram for educational purposes.
• Questioning effectiveness: IFF argued that leaks originate within the examination system and that fraud networks can easily bypass platform blocks or migrate elsewhere.
• Raising transparency concerns: The group criticised the government for not publishing the underlying MeitY order, arguing that affected parties cannot properly scrutinise or challenge the restriction.

What SFLC said: The Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) criticised the government’s decision to restrict Telegram, arguing that the measure is disproportionate and unlikely to address the underlying causes of examination paper leaks. Furthermore, it argued that Telegram is only one of many channels through which leaked material could be circulated. The organisation argued that restricting access to Telegram does not address the source of the problem and could simply push illicit activity onto alternative services.

SFLC.in highlighted Telegram’s widespread use in India and warned that the restriction would affect millions of legitimate users. The organisation also raised concerns about the impact on free expression and communications, arguing that broad platform-level restrictions risk causing significant public disruption while delivering limited benefits in preventing future leaks.

Impact on businesses: Arun Prabhudesai, founder and CEO of Armoks Media, wrote on X that Telegram functions as the “default deployment layer” for AI agents, trading bots, and automation pipelines. He argued that blocking the platform would break thousands of automated workflows used by developers and businesses across India, including his.

Similarly, startup founder Pranab Salian said his company relies on Telegram for production notifications and delivery workflow. 

Meanwhile, Nikhil Pahwa, MediaNama founder and editor-in-chief, pointed out on X that entire business communities use Telegram to exchange purchase demands. He added that the platform is also the easiest in terms of deploying and using AI agents. 

Furthermore, Pahwa argued that examination-related fraud could just as easily occur on WhatsApp or Discord and questioned whether blocking Telegram nationwide constitutes a proportionate response.

NEET Aspirants depend on Telegram: The restriction has also drawn criticism from students who rely on Telegram as part of their daily preparation for competitive examinations. MediaNama spoke to two NEET-UG aspirants on the condition of anonymity who said they depend on Telegram for study material, question banks, lecture videos and revision resources. 

Both expressed frustration that the restriction was announced less than a week before the re-examination, saying that it will disrupt their established study routines. One student estimated that “more than half” of their study material came through Telegram groups and channels.

Is the restriction proportionate or justified? In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), the Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right and reaffirmed that restrictions on constitutional rights must satisfy tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Subsequently, in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020), the Court held that internet restrictions must be temporary, proportionate, and subject to review, while also stressing that orders should be published to enable legal challenge.

Meanwhile, in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), the Court upheld Section 69A of the IT Act with procedural safeguards, which are notice, hearing, access to the blocking order, and the right to appeal. Importantly, the blocking order has not yet been made public. 

Also read

• Rising political censorship in AP: Meta blocked AP opposition party’s Facebook page
• Timeline: Cockroach Janta Party’s account withholds, website blocking, and the Delhi HC petition
• The harms of social media: What is driving proposed age restrictions for children on the internet #NAMA

The post Explained: Is the Telegram restriction in India necessary or disproportionate? appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

What TRAI proposed: The regulator’s Draft Telecom Consumer Protection (Thirteenth Amendment) Regulation, 2026 would require operators to offer a voice-and SMS-only Special Tariff Voucher (STV) for every validity period currently available under bundled plans that include data, to price it proportionately lower, and to display it prominently across customer touchpoints.

The fight is a rerun of one of the operators already lost. When TRAI mandated the first voice-and SMS-only voucher in 2024, every private operator opposed it, and only state-owned Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) backed it. TRAI overruled the objections then, citing the roughly 150 million subscribers who use basic or feature phones and do not need data.

The draft now expands that mandate after TRAI found that operators offered only a handful of the vouchers. Operators restricted these to long validity periods of 80 or 84 days and 336 or 365 days and did not cut tariffs proportionately when they removed the data.

The operators are now recycling the same arguments they made and lost in 2024, including Jio’s contention that India differs from markets like the United States (US) because Indians depend on mobile data as essential infrastructure.

The operators’ case:

• Jio called the split technically incompatible with modern networks, arguing that 4G and 5G networks are fully Internet Protocol (IP)-based, so voice runs as an application over the data bearer and separating the two is artificial.
• Jio also flagged fraud risk, warning that cheap, short-validity voice and SMS plans could lower barriers for fraudsters and increase spam and cyber fraud. It added that 88% of its entry-level subscribers actively use data and that existing voice-only plans saw limited demand.
• Vi warned of surprise charges, noting that background data from software updates, app functions, and one-time password (OTP) services could push customers into unanticipated pay-as-you-go billing.
• Airtel argued exclusion from the digital ecosystem, contending that India’s digital public infrastructure is mobile-data-driven and that voice-only plans could create a segment of users cut off from it.
• Jio rejected the international comparison, arguing that India differs from markets such as the United States (US), where users lean on Wi-Fi, since Indians rely on mobile data for Unified Payments Interface (UPI) transactions, social media, and daily services.

The consumer counter: Consumer rights groups and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) argued:

• Non-data users subsidise data-heavy ones. Millions of low-income, rural and elderly subscribers must buy data they do not use, effectively cross-subsidising other users to the tune of tens of thousands of crores of rupees a year in unused entitlements.
• Coverage gaps make data unusable. In tribal, remote, and hilly regions, towers often fail to deliver reliable data, yet users must still pay for data bundles.
• Entry-level plans cost more per GB. Consumers on low-value packs pay around Rs 94-99 per gigabyte (GB), far above the per-GB rates on premium plans.

Why it matters: Having overruled the same objections in 2024, TRAI now faces a narrower question, not whether to mandate the packs but how strictly to set their pricing and validity. The operators’ “data is essential” framing, once an argument against the packs, now doubles as a justification for keeping them costly. TRAI will weigh the submissions before notifying the amendment.

Also read:

• Sony and Jio oppose TRAI’s proposal seeking to regulate FAST services
• TRAI aims to regulate free ad-supported streaming TV (FAST) apps like Samsung TV Plus
• Telcos Urge India’s Telecom Regulator to Bring Comm Platforms like WhatsApp Under Spam Regulations

The post Jio, Airtel, Vi oppose TRAI’s plan to mandate cheap voice & SMS-only plans appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

Wi-Fi router companies TP-Link and Netgear are battling in federal court in Delaware over Lanham Act violations, a US law that governs trademarks, service marks, and unfair competition. After TP-Link filed suit in November 2025, Netgear filed counterclaims in June 2026, with both sides now accusing the other of false and misleading statements regarding business operations.

 TP-Link dismisses Netgear’s China-affiliation allegations; claims it’s a US company: “TP- Link brings this action to address an unlawful smear campaign by Netgear to falsely cast TP-Link and its products as infiltrated by the Chinese government. The accusation is baseless. TP-Link is a US- based company incorporated and headquartered in California that has no ties with the Chinese government,” read its complaint filed with the District Court of Delaware in November 2025. 

Why has the company’s country of origin become a central issue? In March 2026,  citing national security reasons, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) added foreign-made consumer-grade routers to its “Covered List,” which prohibits new models from entering the US market.

Later, on June 8, the US Department of Defense released the new list of “Entities Identified as Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States.” These include: TP Link, Baidu, Tencent, BYD and many more. It said that these companies are ” Access the full list here: [ PDF ]

On its separation from the Chinese parent company: “Although TP-Link’s predecessor company was founded in China in 1996, the company split after its founding into two distinct and separate entities, which today are TP-LINK Technologies Co., Ltd. and Plaintiff TP-Link Systems Inc. TP-LINK Technologies Co., Ltd. is a Chinese company that sells its products in mainland China, and is not a party to this case.”

On Chinese government ties: “TP-Link is a U.S.-based company incorporated and headquartered in California that has no ties with the Chinese government,” it claimed. 

Netgear’s central position, as quoted in the filing: “TP-Link remains, at its core, a Chinese company selling Chinese-made products.”

TP-Link alleges Netgear launched a smear campaign against it: “On information and belief, Netgear has fed false and misleading information to third parties such as media personnel, operatives, consultants, and other businesses to act as mouthpieces for Netgear’s smear campaign.”

According to Tom’s Hardware’s review of the June 11, 2026, filing, Netgear’s counterclaim not only denies the smear allegation but also shifts to offense. It also argued that TP‑Link misleads consumers by falsely presenting itself as a fully independent American company rather than as an entity still tied to China‑based TP‑Link Technologies, particularly by continuing to run R&D operations in China. 

On Netgear’s lobbying: “Netgear has spent at least hundreds of thousands of dollars over at least the last year lobbying both chambers of Congress, the United States Department of Commerce, the United States Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Communications Commission.”

 TP-Link claims that Netgear’s comments cost over a billion dollars in sales: “Netgear’s misconduct has injured and threatens injury to well over a billion dollars in sales, for which it will be held accountable.“ 

Both companies differ on TP-Link’s footprint in the US: According to Tom’s Hardware’s review of Netgear’s counter filing, TP-Link’s share of the US router market is about 65%.  Whereas, TP-Link claims that its “share of router sales in the United States is less than 10%.”

Follow this case using these details: Case No. 1:25-cv-01396-MN, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Background: In 2024, India’s cybersecurity agency, CERT-IN, said it found a severe security vulnerability in TP-Link routers that could be exploited to “execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges.” Read MediaNama’s coverage here. 

Also Read: 

• US Blocks Foreign-Made Routers on Security Grounds 
• Don’t access social media on official devices unless permitted: Home ministry’s social media and internet policy for govt employees
• Cisco router hack exposes Internet traffic details from India & other countries

The post Explained: Why TP-Link and Netgear are in a lawsuit with national security concerns at the center appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

However, the gaming company has not published any data showing how often children are misidentified as older users. Furthermore, Roblox’s age-verification measures raise key questions about user privacy and the workarounds users have found to circumvent the system. 

Is ticking a box to say you’re 16 or older enough? Roblox already requires users to complete an age check before they can use chat features. In April, it announced plans to sort players into age brackets. Users under 16 and 9 are placed under Roblox Select and Roblox Kids accounts, respectively. Those who do not undergo age checks have restricted access to chat and the content library.

• However, age checks can go wrong. Parents were recently found to be completing age checks on behalf of their children on Roblox, resulting in some children being classified as 21+ and gaining access to adult content. 
• In January, WIRED reported that age-verified Roblox accounts for minors as young as 9 were being sold on eBay for as little as $4, allowing bad actors to bypass the age-verification process by using pre-verified accounts. When an adult seeking children’s data, or a child seeking access to adult content, can simply purchase their way past the checks, the verification process ceases to be a barrier and becomes a commodity.  

Children have found ways to bypass facial age-estimation technology: A recent survey by Internet Matters revealed that 32% of children in the UK had already bypassed age checks by entering fake birthdates, using someone else’s login credentials, or even drawing fake moustaches.

• In a recent MediaNama roundtable discussion, a speaker pointed out a shortcoming in facial age-estimation, saying, “Someone put up a Barbie doll instead of their own face, and the AI guessed their age as 102.”
• Another speaker said they would not be comfortable with any company or government running facial recognition on a child. “I use DigiYatra quite frequently myself. But I’m trading convenience for this. We need to look at building resilience in the child against the harms, because the harms are not going away,” they said.
• Earlier this year, in April, the Australian eSafety Commissioner confirmed that children could easily bypass facial age-estimation technology deployed by social media platforms if they were within two years of turning 16. In many cases, platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube reportedly encouraged users to bypass security checks.
• In 2025, the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme’s trial of Australia’s age assurance technology revealed that most age assurance systems had an accuracy rate of 92%. The trial report noted that around the 16+ age gate, the systems had false rejection rates of 8.5% and 2.6% for 16 and 17-year-olds, respectively, which is above the acceptable level.

Concerns around user privacy: To verify their ages on Roblox, users need to take a video selfie using a device camera, which is processed by the company’s third-party vendor, Persona. Alternatively, they can upload a government-issued photo ID if they are 13 or older.

Roblox claims that Persona immediately deletes biometric data after estimating users’ ages. However, several users online have raised privacy concerns. One user on X wrote: “Facial scans, ID checks, age verification systems, once they’re built and normalised for one purpose, they don’t need a fresh decision to be used for something else later.”

“Age-verification systems are, at their core, surveillance systems. By requiring identity verification to access basic online services, we risk creating an internet where anonymity is a thing of the past,” writes Electronic Frontier Foundation.

AI can mis-age players: MediaNama has reviewed several posts from players and parents claiming that Roblox’s system misidentified players’ ages.

One user, who claimed to be 23 years old and was incorrectly classified as a minor, wrote on X: “I don’t want to be chatting with fucking children.” Another alleged that their 10-year-old sibling had been sorted into the over-18 age bracket.

Another X user wrote: “I have a full-ass beard and it put my alt on a 13-16 age range.”

Roblox says it uses a system of “continuous age estimation” that runs in the background to monitor potential discrepancies between a user’s account age and their “behavioral age.”

However, the company did not explain how this process works or whether users are notified.

Bans won’t stop access: According to Roblox, parents can block certain games and manage direct messages until a child turns 16. However, Nikhil Pahwa, founder and editor of MediaNama, believes such strict barriers may prompt children to find workarounds, ultimately undermining their safety.

“Children will use VPNs. They’ll lie about their age. They are smart. In fact, the best thing that will probably happen with these bans is that children will figure out workarounds to unexpected and unwelcome censorship that doesn’t respect their need for agency. The outcome is that they access it unsupervised, without parental involvement, and via workarounds. And that’s not necessarily safer,” Pahwa said.

Why this matters: These concerns come amid growing global pressure on tech firms to protect children online. On June 15, 2026, the UK government announced it would ban social media for children under 16, effective early 2027. The ban will cover platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. However, messaging apps WhatsApp and Signal will remain unaffected. It is also unclear if the rules will apply to gaming platforms, including Roblox and Discord. When Australia banned social media for under-16s in December last year, it was criticised for not including gaming platforms. In the US, Roblox and Discord are facing a lawsuit by a 13-year-old, who claims he was groomed and solicited on both of these platforms by a sexual predator, who was later arrested for his crimes against more than two dozen children.

In India, platforms face new duties under the Digital Personal Data Protection Law. They are required to obtain verifiable parental consent for internet access for children under 18. However, Pahwa has described this move as “foolish” and “idiotic”.

“What MEITY has now done with the Rules is to incorporate a (probably illegal) bypass, by allowing children to self-declare their age: the illustrations on page 28 of the rules completely ignore the possibility of a child not declaring that they’re a child. A rule cannot override the law, but I guess it will only be struck down when the Committee of Subordinate Legislation does their job, or someone takes it to court. The platform doesn’t because this carve-out serves them the most. Self-declaration makes the law redundant because Children will lie about their age. If a child does not disclose that they are a child, then parental consent is never triggered, he said.

India is also considering age-based restrictions for minors’ use of social media. However, it remains unclear whether the upcoming rules will apply to gaming companies such as Roblox. Indonesia has placed Roblox into the “high-risk” platform category, similar to TikTok, Facebook and Instagram, and said it will restrict access to these platforms for users under 16. Malaysia is also said to be considering similar restrictions.

Also read:

• Roblox makes facial age verification mandatory for children under 16 in Indonesia
• Why banning children from Social Media avoids the real problem
• India Plans Three-Tier Social Media Restrictions Rather Than Complete Ban for Children Under 18: Report
• All you need to know about Australia’s plans to ban social media for teens and its age verification tech

The post Roblox’s AI facial age checks raise questions about user privacy and inaccurate age estimations appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

“Security has always been an important issue, especially in terms of signal spillage into the borders. So that’s a national concern, and the MHA is working on that front,” the official told the publication.

The report said the MHA has formed a Group of Secretaries (GoS) to review the issue. It added that the scrutiny is not limited to Elon Musk-led Starlink but also covers Eutelsat-OneWeb, backed by Bharti Airtel, and the Jio-SES satellite venture.

What is under review?: Signal spillage refers to radio signals extending beyond intended coverage areas. Security agencies are examining whether such transmissions could create risks around border security, spectrum interference, or unauthorised access to communications networks.

Wider satcom scrutiny: The development comes days after reports claimed security agencies had effectively held back Starlink’s remaining clearances despite the company securing key regulatory approvals. Those reports linked the concerns to questions over government control of foreign satellite operators during geopolitical conflicts and reports that Starlink terminals had operated in Iran without a local license.

Starlink’s response: Starlink publicly disputed those claims. Lauren Dreyer, Vice President of Starlink Business Operations at SpaceX, said on X: “Starlink remains in active and productive discussions with the Government of India contrary to misleading stories based upon unsubstantiated claims from anonymous sources.”

She also said, “To align with India’s sovereign technology, regulatory, and security requirements, Starlink has set up a bespoke deployment model for India that further demonstrates our commitment to working within India’s strategic framework.”

Regulatory status: Starlink received a Global Mobile Personal Communication by Satellite (GMPCS) license from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in June last year, while Eutelsat-OneWeb and Jio-SES secured GMPCS authorisations. All three operators have received approvals from the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe).

According to the report, Starlink has also agreed to India’s data sovereignty requirements, and its shareholding structure has been cleared by authorities. However, final approvals remain tied to the ongoing security review.

Amazon’s Project Kuiper is also awaiting a GMPCS licence from the DoT.

Read more:

• Starlink Glitch Accidentally Displays Rs 8,600 Monthly Charge for Internet Access: The company Clarifies
• DoT Allocates Provisional Spectrum to Starlink: What This Means
• Maharashtra Ties Up With Starlink for Satellite Internet for Remote Areas Like Gadchiroli

The post India examines security risks linked to Starlink, OneWeb and SES: Report  appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

• Growing up in the online world: progress statement — [ PDF | Archived ]
• 4-page summary of the report — [ PDF | Archived ]
• June progress statement: summary of evidence, methodology, and organisations who responded to the consultation — [ PDF | Archived ]

On June 15, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the UK government will ban children from accessing social media and enforce stricter age-gating mechanisms to ensure under-16s are protected from the harms and risks of social media and the internet. You can read MediaNama’s reporting of the announcement and the subsequent press conference here. 

Following this announcement, the UK government released some of the responses it received through its public consultation process. Here are some of the key details from their public consultation report.

How many responses did the UK consultation receive? The UK government ran the public consultation for about 85 days, from 2 March 2026 to 26 May 2026. The distribution of respondents is as follows: 

• Children: (at least) 14,000 — 12.05% 
• Parents: (more than) 54,000 — 46.46%
• Organizations: 600 — 0.51%
• Total: 1,16,211

Interestingly, the short summary of the full report often cites children’s responses before outlining the government’s regulatory approach. 

Key Findings: 

• Over 60% of children support some age restrictions: “Two-thirds of children who responded to the consultation told us that they would support age restrictions for under 16s on at least some social media.”
• 90% of parents support the complete ban: “90% of parents told us they would support under-16s not being allowed on social media.”

Children who responded said they supported restrictions on the following features: 

• Sending explicit images (63%),
• connecting to strangers (49%) and,
• livestreaming (45%).

Therefore, the UK government says that even gaming applications cannot offer these features to under-16s, and platforms can’t enable them automatically. These features should be accessible only if the user voluntarily enables them. 

How many people thought social media has more benefits to offer than risks? 

• Children: “40% of children thought the benefits outweighed the risks.”
• Parents: “Only 11% of respondents to the parents’ consultation agreed that the benefits of being on social media outweighed the risks.”

Social media benefits vs harms: More than 25,000 respondents who answered this question identified the following as the benefits and harms of social media and of children’s access to those platforms.

• Social connection and learning: The reported benefits are connection, information, learning, education, and friendship as primary positives, alongside communication, community support, and access to interest-based content and entertainment.
• Harms center on mental health and exposure to risks: The dominant concerns are mental health, bullying, exposure to inappropriate content, addiction, misinformation, and lack of safety, alongside cyberbullying, predatory behavior, and impacts on self-esteem and screen time.

The UK followed a mixed approach to the public consultation process: It used multiple-choice questions, open-ended responses and email submissions.

• AI analysis for open-ended questions: For open-ended responses, they deployed UK-owned Consult, an AI tool built specifically to analyze public consultation feedback. 
• Manual analysis for civil society and stakeholder responses: The UK government says it individually reviewed 279 email responses from civil society groups, businesses and stakeholders. 

UK MP Kanishka Narayan also engaged with young people at forums such as the Youth Town Hall. He is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. View some pictures of his interaction with children here. 

‘Risky’ designed-for-adults AI platforms will be banned for children: 66% of children have reportedly said that AI should have minimum age limits. “So, the riskiest ones, designed with adults in mind, will only be for people who are 18 and older,” stated the government. 

“95% of responses to the parents’ consultation thought AI chatbots should have functionality restrictions, and 74% of young people (16-21) thought the same,” stated the report. 

General-purpose AI chatbots won’t be banned; the features that enable sexualised interactions will be banned: “We therefore intend to ensure that chatbots whose primary purpose is to provide sexual relationships to their users cannot be accessed by children. Access to general-purpose AI models will not be age-gated. However, to access features on general-purpose models that enable sexually explicit interaction, a user would need to prove that they are over 18.”

What are the obligations on platforms? They need to do the following things: 

• “Ask for proof of your age,
• Use accurate technology to estimate how old they think you are.”

17-year-olds may get a night curfew without a choice to turn off; UK to finalize this in July:  “In July, we will set out our final decision on an optional nighttime curfew on social media between midnight and 6 am for 16 and 17-year-olds. This means overnight restrictions would be on as standard, but could be turned off by individuals”. This regulation may also target the ‘addictive features’. It stated that it would review the evidence before enforcing such restrictions. 

UK children will not have access to social media even if they have parental consent: “Under these rules, social media apps or websites will not be allowed to offer their services to children under 16, even if you have permission from your parent or carer”

Which platforms will be barred from offering services to under-16s? Since the UK is yet to legislate the proposals, there is no final official list of platforms that must comply. However, it said it will follow the list of social media apps recognized by Australia’s law. They are: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick and Reddit. 

 UK hasn’t decided on the narrow list of exemptions like music streaming and e-commerce platforms: “Our approach will be targeted and proportionate. Nearly a third of people who responded to our full consultation thought that educational and cultural sites, such as libraries and museums, should be exempt from age restrictions. There will be a narrowly defined list of exemptions, including, for example, educational services, e-commerce platforms and music streaming. We will keep this definition under review.”

UK wants platforms to be redesigned for young people, especially for useful information: “Access to high-quality and educational content remains essential. While many children may currently access content like the news through social media and video sharing platforms,10 these are not the only – nor always the most reliable – sources of high-quality, educational and news content. We want to see more high-quality services designed specifically for young people.”

Device-level age restrictions are under review; this is to ensure a better user experience for adults: “We think that by keeping under-16s off social media, preventing children from communicating with strangers and requiring more device-level protections for children, which prevent the taking, sharing or viewing of nude images, we will address these main risks. We think this approach will ensure children are protected in a way that is proportionate and risk-based and will not require adults to complete age checks where it may not be necessary. But we will keep this under review.”

Most parents supported more frequent age checks for adults for the sake of child safety: “81% of respondents to the parents’ consultation and 63% of respondents to the full consultation agreed that “adults should complete age checks more often, if it means children are safer online”.

UK plans to work with the tech industry to develop more accurate age-assessment tools: “We plan to improve the availability of age assurance for 16- 17-year-olds.” This includes exploring easier access to secure, privacy-preserving ways for people to prove their age online – such as reusable checks that confirm they meet an age threshold without requiring full ID each time. We will support the development of standards, to make it clear to industry and the public what best practice looks like for trustworthy age assurance technologies.”

UK will publish a detailed roadmap report in July 2026: A further update will be published on the full range of questions asked by 16 July 2026, including: 

• Possible further default protections for 16- and 17-year-olds, such as restrictions overnight and on other design features, like infinite scroll,
• Whether the age of digital consent should be raised,
• Risks of circumvention through the use of virtual private networks,
• Media literacy support for parents.

Go deeper: 

• Savanta’s Children’s Wellbeing Online: Social Media Quantitative Report — [ PDF ]
• Summary of Ministerial and official engagement as part of the National Conversation — [ PDF ]
• June progress statement: summary of evidence, methodology, and organisations who responded to the consultation — [ PDF ]
• UK Government’s Media Literacy Action Plan (2026-2029) — [ URL ]
• UK Media Use and Attitudes Report — [PDF ]
• Understanding the impact of smartphones and social media on children and young people – [ URL ]
• Feasibility Study of Methods and Data to Understand the Impact of Smartphones and Social Media on Children and Young People  – [ PDF ]
• Me, myself and AI: Understanding and safeguarding children’s use of AI chatbots — [ PDF ]
•  “Darling, Please Come Back Soon”: Sexual Exploitation, Manipulation, and Violence on Character AI Kids’ Accounts — [ PDF ]

Also Read: 

• The harms of social media: What is driving proposed age restrictions for children on the internet
• Digital Literacy: How parents and schools can build children’s agency against online harms
• Karnataka CM Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s: What Challenges Lie Ahead? 

The post Why the UK is banning social media for under-16s: Key takeaways from the public consultation appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

The NTA has announced that the messaging app Telegram has been temporarily restricted in India under a direction issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). According to the NTA, MeitY acted under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, following the agency’s recommendations.

The order restricts access to Telegram in India until June 22, 2026, covering the NEET (UG) 2026 re-examination, which is scheduled to be held the day before, as well as its “immediate aftermath”. In addition, MeitY has directed Telegram to disable its message-editing feature in India until June 30, 2026.

Why was message editing disabled: According to the NTA, authorities targeted the feature because channel administrators can edit previously posted messages while retaining the original timestamp. Crucially, administrators can also replace attached files, including PDFs, after publication. 

The NTA said bad actors have exploited this capability in recent examinations by inserting the actual question paper into an older, unrelated message after an exam concluded. They then circulated screenshots of the edited post as purported proof that the paper had leaked beforehand. Consequently, the government said the restriction closes a route that has allegedly enabled the creation of misleading “paper leak” evidence.

Why was NEET-UG 2026 initially cancelled? The NTA cancelled the original NEET-UG 2026 examination, conducted on May 3, after investigations concluded that material resembling questions from the actual paper had circulated before the test. The issue first came to light on May 2, when a Rajasthan-based hostel owner filed a complaint alleging that students had received a suspicious “question bank” before the examination that contained questions appearing in the actual test.

Further complaints led to a wider probe involving central agencies and the Rajasthan Police. The NTA referred the matter to the CBI and, with government approval, cancelled the examination. The decision marked the first full cancellation of a NEET-UG examination since the NTA took over conducting the test in 2019.

Also read:

• Everything to know about CBSE’s 2026 evaluation crisis: a timeline
• After CBSE marking system, a researcher exposes the NTA re-examination portal’s vulnerabilities
• CBSE hacked: Cybersecurity researcher demonstrates access after official denials

The post Telegram restricted in India until June 22 ahead of NEET-UG 2026 re-exam appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

The investors:

• HCLTech leads the round with a $150 million investment, acquiring a 10.46% stake for Rs 1,427.25 crore.
• Bessemer Venture Partners has joined the round alongside existing investors Khosla Ventures and Peak XV Partners.
• Lightspeed Venture Partners has sat out the round despite leading Sarvam’s earlier funding round.

Sarvam has not disclosed a timeline for closing the remaining $66 million. The startup will use the capital to fund its next-generation frontier model for agentic AI, coding, and cybersecurity use cases, as well as to secure compute capacity at scale. It plans to expand deployments across four verticals: banking, insurance, government technology, and defence.

The valuation reflects a clear bet on future scale. Sarvam reported revenue of Rs 45.1 crore in 2025-26, compared with a previous valuation of around $196 million in 2025. The company says usage is scaling rapidly. Its conversational platform now handles more than 2 million interactions a day, doubling in two months, while its inference platform processes 10 million application programming interface (API) calls daily, tripling in three months.

Its government pipeline is also widening. The company signed sovereign AI infrastructure Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with Tamil Nadu for the Digital Sangam research park with IIT Madras and with Odisha for a 50-megawatt (MW) compute facility, both in February 2026.

The raise marks a turnaround for Sarvam. The government selected the startup in April 2025 to build India’s first sovereign Large Language Model (LLM) under the IndiaAI Mission, but it faced scepticism over its pace of development and low download numbers.

Critics also pointed out that its May 2025 model, Sarvam-M, was built by fine-tuning a foreign foundation model with Indian data rather than being developed from scratch. Sarvam responded to those concerns at the AI Impact Summit in February 2026 by launching two models trained from scratch on Indian-language datasets.

The funding further sharpens India’s sovereign AI push. It comes just days after the United States (US) government blocked foreign nationals from accessing Anthropic’s latest models, deepening concerns about reliance on overseas providers. Sarvam co-founder Pratyush Kumar linked the funding round directly to that development, writing on X: “You should not confuse access with ownership, or adoption itself as advantage.”

The government is funding Sarvam as one of 12 organisations building foundational models under the IndiaAI Mission, positioning it as a full-stack Indian alternative spanning models, infrastructure, and applications.

Also read:

• Why Sarvam wants its AI data centers in space satellites?
• Everything Sarvam AI Announced During India AI Impact Summit 2026
• Public Funds, Private Model: Govt’s Investment in Sarvam AI Sparks Open-Source Debate

The post Sarvam raises $234 million, becomes AI unicorn amid Anthropic curbs appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

Anthropic will update its Privacy Policy, effective July 8, 2026, to expand the types of user data it collects and how it uses that data. These changes apply only to consumer accounts, including Claude Free, Pro, and Max plans. They do not affect Claude Team, Enterprise, the Developer Platform, or services governed by separate commercial agreements.

As Claude handles more complex, multi-step tasks and integrates with third-party apps and services, Anthropic now discloses what data is shared with external services and what data it receives in return after task completion.

Verification may require a government ID and a selfie: According to Anthropic’s support page, Claude users may encounter verification prompts when using specific features, during platform integrity checks, or for safety and compliance purposes.

The company states that users may need a government-issued photo ID and a camera-equipped device. Accepted IDs include passports, driver’s licences, state or provincial ID cards, and national identity cards. The ID must be original, physical, government-issued, legible, undamaged, and include a photograph. Anthropic does not accept photocopies, screenshots, scans, photos of photos, digital or mobile IDs, student IDs, employee badges, library cards, bank cards, or temporary paper IDs.

Persona handles ID and selfie collection: Anthropic uses Persona Identities as its identity verification partner. According to Anthropic’s support page, Anthropic acts as the data controller for verification data, while Persona processes that data on its behalf. ID and selfie images are collected and stored by Persona, not on Anthropic’s systems.

Anthropic can access verification records through Persona’s platform during appeals. Persona is contractually limited to using the data for verification, support, and fraud prevention. The data is encrypted both in transit and at rest and is not used to train models.

Persona must delete verification data in accordance with Anthropic’s retention limits and applicable law, but the support page does not specify a retention period. Since verification requires government IDs and live selfies, this omission is significant, especially for non-US users who may be uncertain about where their data is stored, who can access it, and which jurisdiction applies.

Verification failures can affect account access: Anthropic states that verification may fail because of a blurry photo, an unreadable document, an expired ID, or technical issues. Users are advised to retry with better lighting, ensure that the document is clear and valid, or contact Anthropic if problems persist.

The company notes that accounts may be banned after verification for repeated policy violations, account creation from unsupported locations, violations of the Terms of Service, or use by individuals under 18. Users who believe their account was banned in error may appeal through Anthropic’s online form.

Unanswered questions persist over Anthropic’s verification practices: MediaNama previously reported that Reddit and X users, including Claude Pro subscribers, claimed that Anthropic wrongly flagged them as minors and suspended their accounts, citing detected signals of underage use and providing a 30-day window for age verification. Some accounts were reinstated after ID verification, while others experienced ongoing project disruptions despite receiving refunds. Anthropic has said that checks may be triggered by certain capabilities, platform integrity reviews, or safety and compliance reasons, without specifying which features or behaviours lead to such reviews.

MediaNama raised questions about the criteria behind these flags, how users can appeal, and how the process aligns with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, particularly regarding the transfer of verification data to Persona’s US servers, the legal basis for that transfer, and applicable retention periods.

It also highlighted concerns about Persona itself, citing researchers’ findings on watchlist screening, adverse media checks, risk scoring, and multi-year data retention in Persona’s files. While there is no evidence that verification data is being shared with government systems, the report argued that the partnership sits awkwardly alongside Anthropic’s public stance against surveillance-enabling AI uses.

Model training and verification data are separate issues: Anthropic says verification data is not used to train its models. This policy should be distinguished from Claude’s broader model-training approach. According to Anthropic’s privacy policy, user inputs and outputs may be used to improve services and train models unless users opt out through their account settings. The policy also states that conversations may be used to improve the model if the content is flagged for safety review or explicitly reported through user feedback.

Also read:

• Anthropic calls for the ability to slow or pause frontier AI development
• Anthropic To Utilise User Chats For AI Training: What Are Its Risks?
• Anthropic opens Mythos-class AI to the public, but keeps high-risk capabilities behind guardrails

The post Anthropic to widen data collection for Claude users from July 8 appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

In a social media video released, Starmer also said: 

• “The response from parents in the consultation has been absolutely clear. Thousands of parents say their children are addicted to social media. It can leave them trapped in a cycle of endless scrolling that displaces play, sleep, and time with the family.”
• “We haven’t rushed into it; we’ve looked carefully at the evidence, and we’ll have to adapt our approach as technology changes and learn from other countries that are taking similar steps. And it’s fair to say that this decision has been resisted, and it will face resistance from some of the most powerful companies in the world.”

Later, the UK PM addressed the press, followed by a brief Q&A. Some of the important statements made at the press conference are: 

Addictive algorithms, infinite scrolls, and the harms of social media: “Social media is making children unhappy. It’s making it easier for bullies to harass and abuse them. And it could even be harming their mental health, exposing them to content that is dangerous because that’s what grabs the attention. It’s designed to be addictive…. Features like the infinite scroll are designed to lock you in for hours… It stops children from doing their homework, reading, playing with their friends outside, and going to bed at a decent hour.” 

“I feel for this generation. I think back to my own childhood. And yes, the early 1970s weren’t always a picnic. But we didn’t have to deal with anything like this. A technology that intrudes into every corner of a life, almost impossible to escape, that records every mistake,” he added.

There is a correlation between social media usage and children’s mental health, says UK PM: Responding to a question regarding social media usage really having an impact on children’s mental health, he said, “I’d say there’s a correlation. I’d say there’s a particular added issue in relation to the COVID period for children and young people. Our job now is to act on that. The ban today is an important part of acting on that, but it’s not the only part.” 

The UK won’t stop age-gating and will go after games and live streams to prevent contact with online strangers: “We’re not just bringing forward a ban. We’re going further. We’re taking world-leading action on gaming services and livestreaming platforms, where at the moment, strangers can contact… any child unchecked.”

“Is there a situation in the offline world where you would just let your child pair up with a stranger, an adult that you don’t know anything about? No. So we’re taking action on that,” he stated, outlining the intent. 

The UK might enforce a social media ban legally by March-April 2027: “We hoped to pass a regulation before Christmas and therefore to bring the ban into force in the early part of next year, probably about springtime. So we can move at a real pace here.”

Platforms should be responsible and won’t punish children for trying to access it: “Firstly, the enforcement will be on the platform providers, not on the children… We’re not going to start taking action against 13 and 14 and 15-year-olds who are trying, as they always will, to get around rules that adults put in their path.”

How does the UK plan to measure the success of the social ban for children? Answering a question by a reporter, the UK PM laid out the following two points as metrics to measure the success of their plan/policy: 

• A drop in children count on social media: “Just in terms of success, that will be a drop-off in children on social media. It won’t be complete because some of them will get around it. But a massive drop-off in children on social media is… that’s step number one.”
• Cultural acceptance of children without social media: “Step number two, probably equally, if not more important, is a cultural change, a sense that our children can grow up differently and have better and more enriching childhoods as a result.”

“Cultural change is always much harder than… changing the law is one thing; it can be very difficult. Cultural change is much, much harder,” he further stated. 

The need to equip children to use social media after they turn 16 or 18: “We need to think about how this [social media ban] fits within the school curriculum, how children learn about technology and AI and social media, because the mere fact that we’re banning it from under 16, which we will, doesn’t mean we don’t need to teach children about social media because they’re going to be exposed to it when they’re past 16 or then again when they’re past 18.”

The UK chooses to age-gate social media despite its positive side: “This is not something I do lightly, and I will not present it as cost-free, as if social media has brought no benefits to young people, because clearly, that is wrong. But the government is always about choices. It’s clear to me that a full ban is the right choice.” 

Why won’t the UK accept the ‘kids will always find a workaround’ argument? “Of course. That’s what kids do. They try to get around all of the laws that we put in place to protect them… Teenagers drink before they should. But we don’t then say, in which case, let’s abandon any attempt to stop them buying alcohol. We say, let’s improve the enforcement of what we’re doing. It’s exactly the same in this field,” he responded to the question by Channel 4’s reporter. 

“We are ready and confident that this ban can be effective,” he stated elsewhere in this context.

The UK draws its social media definition from Australia’s law: “We’ve got a definition of social media, which is taken from the Australian model. So that means that certain features or services are expected to be within the ban and some that won’t… There are things like, for example, YouTube Kids, Lego Play, Classroom, and Google. They’re obviously on the other side of the line.”

“Other countries, I think, will be now looking to the UK to see whether that doesn’t provide a blueprint for them. I hope it does, because I want children to be safe in whatever country they live in,” he said elsewhere during the press conference.

Important Read: Check out Nikhil Pahwa’s 10-point argument on “Why banning children from social media avoids the real problem” here.  

Explore MediaNama’s coverage of “Age Verification and Restricting Social Media for Children” here. 

Also Read: 

• UK orders tech firms to stop children sharing nude images within 3 months
• 32% of UK Children Bypassed Online Age Checks, Survey Finds
• How Apple’s new Child Account feature raises privacy and data protection concerns

The post UK to ban social media for under 16s, aims to implement it in 2027 appeared first on MEDIANAMA.