Food companies getting away with misleading claims? Most of the products are still being sold on Blinkit, Zepto, Swiggy Instamart, Amazon Fresh, and Flipkart Minutes, with the same claims that the regulator flagged as misleading.

MediaNama has reached out to Zepto, Blinkit, and Instamart for comments on whether they have received any communication from FSSAI regarding the continued sale of products that it flagged as misleading. This story will be updated if we receive a response.

Brands and products flagged: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on Sunday (June 14, 2026) said it had sent notices to 14 D2C food brands for using misleading branding and deceptive health-related claims.

• Storia Juice Pomegranate: FSSAI said the product’s branding could mislead consumers by creating a false impression that it is solely pomegranate juice, despite containing only 4% pomegranate juice concentrate.
• Two Brothers Organic Farms: The regulator said the brand name could mislead consumers regarding the organic status of its products because they do not carry NPOP/PGS certification, the Jaivik Bharat logo, or the required organic endorsement.
• The Health Factory Zero Maida Whole Wheat Bread: FSSAI said the “Zero Maida” claim is deceptive and likely violates the law, as the product contains chakki fresh atta and wheat gluten.
• The Health Factory Zero Maida Pizza Base: The regulator flagged the “Zero Maida” branding and related claims as potentially misleading.
• PLAN B Plant-Based Vegan: FSSAI said the trade name could mislead consumers into believing the products are vegan, despite the company not having obtained the mandatory vegan certification from the regulator.
• Troovy’s Healthy Mix Veggie Chips, Healthy Ragi Chips and Healthy Moong Dal Chips: The regulator said the use of the word “Healthy” in the product names could mislead consumers because the products contain several other ingredients.

Other food business operators (FBOs) which received notices from FSSAI include Neuherbs True Vitamin, Emami Healthy & Tasty, Organic Wisdom, Shine Organic, World of Organic, Iota Water, Healthy Choice Healthy Food for Healthy Life Poha, Health Aid.

Issued under Section 32 of the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, 2006, a notice is the first indication that the regulator has found a company’s claims about a product to be in violation of the law. The company is expected to take remedial measures within the specified period; otherwise, it could face penalties and possible suspension of its licence.

A recent Scroll investigation found that, of the 163 products that were flagged by the regulator for making misleading claims, the earliest dating back to 2022, nearly 120 continue to remain in circulation, often with the same packaging with deceptive claims intact. Some of these cases involve FMCG giants, including Dabur, Britannia, Tata 1mg, and Patanjali.

Under existing law, FSSAI can impose a maximum financial penalty of Rs 10 lakh on companies that fail to comply with its directions. That limit has remained unchanged since 2006, when the FSS Act first came into force. However, this amount is only a fraction of what major food companies can earn from selling products with misleading claims.

Why this matters: Last year, Blinkit overhauled its operating model, shifting from a pure marketplace model to inventory ownership model. Of the 15 products flagged by FSSAI, at least 8 continue to sold with the same misleading claims on Blinkit, with either Blinkit or Hyperpure acting as a seller on record (merchant).

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, does not include a standalone definition of a “seller.” However, Section 27 of the Act explicitly states that a seller can be held liable if the food is “misbranded.”

How should accountability be assigned when a platform like Blinkit serves both as a seller and an online marketplace (intermediary)?

The issue becomes more significant as quick-commerce platforms Swiggy Instamart and Zepto are also looking to pivot to an inventory-led model. Notably, Swiggy’s bid to achieve Indian-Owned and Controlled Company (IOCC) status suffered a setback last month after shareholders opposed a key proposal to amend the company’s Articles of Association.

As foreign-owned entities, Swiggy and Zepto cannot legally operate an inventory-based e-commerce business in India.

Under India’s FDI policy, 100% foreign investment is permitted in marketplace e-commerce businesses, where independent sellers transact with consumers through a platform. However, FDI is not permitted in inventory-based e-commerce, where the platform owns inventory and sells directly to consumers.

According to Sachin Taparia, founder and CEO of LocalCircles, online platforms such as Blinkit, Zepto and Flipkart cannot be held liable for misleading claims by D2C brands.

Where India’s regulator is actually “failing,” Taparia told MediaNama, is in the enforcement of food advertising regulations, with quick-commerce platforms still not displaying products’ “best before” dates.

The alarmingly low level of enforcement of food advertising regulations also raises concerns. The issue was documented in the Economic Survey 2026 as well. In a section on “the challenge of ultra-processed foods,” the survey noted that although several regulations exist to prevent misleading food advertisements, enforcement “leaves much to be desired.”

Broader context: FSSAI has intensified its crackdown on e-commerce and quick-commerce platforms over the past two years.

• June 2025: Maharashtra’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suspended the food licence of Zepto’s Dharavi dark store after discovering spoiled food, fungal growth, and improper cold storage. The suspension was later revoked following a re-inspection.
• June 2025: The Maharashtra FDA shut down a Blinkit dark store in Pune’s Balewadi area for operating without a valid licence and storing food improperly.
• July 8, 2025: FSSAI convened a high-level meeting with more than 70 e-commerce platform representatives, warning that non-compliance would attract severe action and directing platforms to share warehouse and food handler data with the regulator.
• November 2024: FSSAI directed e-commerce FBOs to ensure that products delivered to consumers retain at least 30% of their shelf life or have at least 45 days remaining before expiry.

Also read:

• Who is liable for spoiled food on quick-commerce apps? FSSAI sends notice to Blinkit‘
• FSSAI: E-Commerce Platforms Could Face Severe Action Over Food Safety Non-Compliance
• Zepto’s Food License Suspended In Mumbai’s Dharavi Due To Poor Hygiene Conditions
• FSSAI Directs E-Commerce Food Business Operators to Strengthen Food Safety Compliance

The post Brands flagged by India’s food regulator for misleading claims still available on Blinkit, Zepto appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

What the model does

Prisma v2.5 is designed to transcribe Indian-language speech, accounting for dialect variation, background noise, and mid-sentence code-switching. According to Gnani.ai, these factors are integrated into the training data rather than treated as exceptions.

The company states that the model improves accuracy for short utterances, numbers, alphanumeric strings, and named entities. Errors in these areas often lead to compliance, CRM, and customer service issues across sectors such as banking, insurance, and healthcare.

Gnani.ai co-founder and CEO Ganesh Gopalan explained that most automatic speech recognition models are designed for studio-quality audio. In contrast, Indian phone calls often feature compressed network audio, multiple languages in a single sentence, and diverse accents not covered by standard datasets.

Performance claims

Gnani.ai reports that it benchmarked Prisma on word and character error rates, with both internal and third-party evaluations indicating it outperforms ElevenLabs, Sarvam AI, and Microsoft on these metrics. However, the company did not disclose its benchmark methodology or specific scores in the announcement.

Gopalan stated that an early retail client switched from a global STT provider to Prisma, though the client was not named.

The company attributes the lower latency to hosting the model in Indian data centres, including E2E Networks’ infrastructure. It says this approach makes the model better suited to real-time applications such as telephony than models hosted overseas.

Rollout plans beyond India

The current release supports only Indian languages. Gopalan stated that Gnani.ai plans to expand the model to Japan, the Philippines, and the Middle East, aiming to establish Prisma as a global product.

Prisma v2.5 builds on two previous releases: Vachana STT, an enterprise Indic speech-to-text model trained on over 1 million hours of voice data and launched in December 2025, and Inya, a voice-first AI model introduced at the India Impact AI Summit 2026.

Gnani.ai raised $10 million (approximately Rs 94 crore) in a Series B round in March, led by Aavishkaar Capital with participation from existing investor InfoEdge Ventures. The company stated that the funds will support expansion into new verticals and geographies, as well as research, development, and hiring.

Competitive backdrop

The launch comes as competition intensifies in India’s voice AI sector between domestic “sovereign AI” companies and global firms such as ElevenLabs and Wispr Flow. Gnani.ai, along with Sarvam AI, Fractal Analytics, and BharatGen, is developing models in this space. Gnani.ai is also among the companies supported by the government’s IndiaAI Mission, together with Sarvam and Soket AI.

Gopalan stated that Gnani.ai’s models are more localised and tested under real-world Indian conditions, which he believes provides a competitive advantage in accuracy.

The sovereign AI discussion has intensified after the United States last week imposed export-control restrictions on Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, citing national security concerns. As a result, Anthropic disabled the models globally instead of implementing selective access controls. Gopalan noted that this incident highlights the importance of countries developing their own AI models with independent security safeguards, a point he has previously emphasised, but one that is now more urgent.

Also read:

• What Are the Risks of Sarvam AI’s New Text-to-Speech Model for Indian Users?
• Explained: OpenAI’s Efforts For Audio-First Personal Device And What It Tells About Voice-First AI
• Microsoft Launches New Speech Generation AI Model MAI-Voice-1 Despite AI Capacity Constraints

The post Gnani.ai launches Prisma v2.5 speech recognition model, claims to be better than Sarvam AI appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

A proposed class action lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington alleges that Microsoft entered into an unlawful agreement with Valve requiring “price parity” between games sold on the Microsoft Store and Steam, amounting to a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. The complaint, filed on May 31, 2026, claims Microsoft “chose to join Valve’s cartel” rather than compete with Steam, resulting in higher prices, reduced choice, and lower quality for consumers. 

The suit seeks damages and injunctive relief under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act on behalf of US consumers who purchased PC games through Steam or the Microsoft Store.

What are the allegations?

• Plaintiffs allege Microsoft and Valve entered into a “horizontal price-fixing agreement” through a 2011 distribution contract.
• The complaint cites Valve’s own court filings, which stated that an arbitrator found a clause in the agreement to be an unlawful “horizontal price-fixing agreement“.
• According to the lawsuit, the arbitrator also described the clause as a “price parity requirement“.
• Plaintiffs allege Microsoft and Valve conspired “with the specific goal of not competing on price”.

How did the alleged price parity work?

• The complaint alleges that if Microsoft lowered the price of a game on its own store, it also had to lower the price on Steam.
• It cites an internal Microsoft communication stating that the Steam publishing agreement historically required “product and price parity“.
• Another Microsoft employee allegedly wrote that Steam required publishers not to “undercut them once you release on Steam“.

What does the lawsuit say about competition?

• Plaintiffs allege Microsoft and Valve agreed not to compete on PC game pricing, content, and release timing.
• The complaint states that Microsoft “actively impeded price competition in the PC game market”.
• It further alleges that the companies “honored their agreements not to compete on PC game content”.
• According to the lawsuit, these arrangements established “uniformity across the market” and prevented competition on quality and content.

What role does Steam play?

• The lawsuit alleges Steam controls roughly 75% of the PC game distribution market.
• It describes Steam as the largest PC game distribution platform in the United States.
• Plaintiffs claim Valve and Microsoft together control “at least 80%” of PC game distribution in the US.

Harms claimed: 

• Plaintiffs allege consumers paid “artificially inflated prices” for PC games.
• The complaint claims consumers lost the benefits of competition, including “lower prices, increased output, unique content selection, and higher quality”.
• It further alleges Microsoft and Valve concealed the agreement for years.
• According to the lawsuit, the alleged price-fixing findings became public only after Valve referenced them in court filings on May 28, 2026.

Why does this matter? This lawsuit does not emerge in isolation. For years, Valve has faced antitrust challenges centred on allegations that Steam’s price parity requirements prevented publishers from offering cheaper prices on rival stores. US courts have already certified a class action brought by over 32,000 game developers alleging that Valve used pricing and content parity obligations to suppress competition in PC game distribution.

What makes this case different, however, is that it targets Microsoft itself. If the plaintiffs prove that Microsoft agreed to Steam’s parity requirements rather than merely complying with them, the dispute could shift from questions about a dominant platform’s conduct to allegations of a horizontal agreement between competitors, traditionally considered among the most serious violations of U.S. antitrust law.

Also read

• Loot Boxes, Pay-to-Win, and Account Selling Missing from India’s Gaming Bill
• Microsoft FY26Q1 Results: Growth Across Sectors Amidst Major Investments In AI
• Australian Competition Watchdog Sues Microsoft For Misleading Subscription Prices

The post Microsoft, Valve face class action over alleged price-fixing deal appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

A Bengaluru Urban Court temporarily ordered “to block all the content from their social media platform regarding Plaintiff [Pawan Kalyan] which is defamatory in nature till next date of hearing,” while passing the John Doe gag order in favor of the Andhra Pradesh (AP) Deputy Chief Minister. The Bengaluru court passed the order on June 11; LiveLaw was the first to report this.

The court scheduled the hearing of this case for next month, July 24, 2026. It means social media platforms must block the allegedly defamatory content until July 24.  

The platforms involved are X, Google and Meta.

Allegations of public land encroachment behind the plea: Actor-turned-politician and AP DyCM Pawan Kalyan approached the court against social media content targeting him. This content includes “Articles, allegations, statements, videos” related to allegations of public land and water body encroachment by Pawan Kalyan. 

The plea, according to the LiveLaw report, states that between May 29 and June 1, 2026, multiple content creators published videos, social media posts, and articles containing “grave and highly damaging allegations” alleging that the plaintiff illegally encroached upon Kodi Cheruvu, a local water body in Ranga Reddy, Telangana.

Claims that IT Rules grievance redressal mechanisms didn’t work: Kalyan claims that they exhausted the grievance redressal mechanisms provided by X and YouTube under the IT Rules, 2021 and therefore approached the court for relief of takedowns/blocking of so-called defamatory content.

The court updated the previous order to include URLs: This judgment was given by the Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. The court had already directed the defendants to stop publishing or circulating the content. But that earlier order wasn’t specific enough because it didn’t list all the URLs and online sources where the content was uploaded. The court then updated its order to include the URLs. The court update shared by LiveLaw contains no URLs, and MediaNama could not download the previous court orders from the Bengaluru Urban Courts e-Courts website.  

You can track this using the case number: O.S. 3986/2026

Throwback to when Bengaluru passed a gag order removing over 8,000 links: In July 2025, a Bengaluru court ordered the restriction of several media houses and content creators from publishing “defamatory” material about the Sri Manjunathaswamy temple in Dharmasthala or its administration, and ordered the deletion or de-indexing of any existing such material. Read MediaNama’s reporting here. 

These targeted 8,842 links, including:

• 4,140 YouTube videos, 
• 932 Facebook posts, 
• 3,584 Instagram posts, 
• 108 news links, 
• 37 Reddit posts, and 
• 41 tweets

Personality rights doctrine is being used to deal with defamatory content: Interestingly (and, quite threateningly), many individuals are approaching courts, seeking the takedown or blocking of allegedly “defamatory” content, citing the doctrine of personality rights, including Pawan Kalyan. A few such cases are: 

• Bombay HC protects Shilpa Shetty’s personality rights, orders takedown of deepfakes and infringing content
• Delhi High Court orders takedown of AI deepfakes of Varun Dhawan, restrains unauthorised merchandise sale
• Delhi HC Orders Google, X to Take Down Alleged Defamatory Posts About Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s Daughter

When Delhi HC drew a line between defamatory content and free speech: Addressing the issue of invoking the personality rights doctrine, which has no statutory basis, Delhi HC, in May 2026, rejected now-BJP member Raghav Chadha’s petition seeking John Doe injunctions against alleged defamatory and non-consensual AI deepfakes. “Unlike other judgments, here it’s just criticism taken on decisions taken by you in the political arena…It is a comment by a person criticising a political decision,” the court noted and stated that criticism of political decisions does not automatically constitute an infringement of personality rights and that previous judgments on personality rights may not be relevant to this case. Read MediaNama’s report here. 

Also Read: 

• Four John Doe orders for blocking websites in the last month alone  
• “We Can’t Be So Sensitive”: Delhi HC Reviews Ramdev’s Personality Rights Claim
• Motorola gets court order to block YouTube videos critical of its phones in India

The post Bengaluru court orders to block content alleging land encroachment by AP DyCM Pawan Kalyan appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

The UK’s competition regulator has ordered Google to make its search rankings more transparent and fair, while also requiring the company to let users share their search data with authorised third-party services.

What Google must do: The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said Google must explain its ranking practices more clearly, give businesses advance notice of major changes to its search systems, and create a formal process for handling ranking-related complaints. The rules will apply to organic search results, including AI-generated features such as AI Overviews, but not to paid advertisements.

Google must also allow users to transfer their search data to approved third parties through a secure process. The CMA said this could help other companies build services such as personalised recommendations, shopping offers, discounts and rewards.

Why the CMA is acting: The regulator said it acted after businesses raised concerns that changes to Google’s search systems often lacked transparency and could affect traffic and revenue without sufficient warning. According to the CMA, this uncertainty discouraged some businesses from investing and growing.

The CMA designated Google with Strategic Market Status (SMS), a classification reserved for companies with substantial and entrenched market power in key digital services. The company handles more than 90% of search queries in the UK, according to the regulator.

What the CMA said: Announcing the measures, CMA Executive Director for Digital Markets Will Hayter said: “Step by step, we’re ensuring that Google’s search services work better for businesses and consumers across the UK.”

He added: “Search is a vital gateway for businesses in the UK to reach customers, and clearer, predictable and more transparent ranking systems could give them greater scope to expand and invest.”

Google’s response: Google said it would work with the regulator, while maintaining that its ranking systems are already fair. A company spokesperson said the systems are “fair, transparent and show the most relevant, highest quality results”.

Earlier AI search measures: The latest action follows measures introduced earlier this month that gave publishers more control over whether their content can be used to power Google’s AI search features. However, the UK’s Professional Publishers Association argued that the six-month implementation period for the ranking rules gives Google too much time while AI-driven search continues to reshape how audiences find content online.

Google has been given six months to implement the ranking-related requirements and three months to comply with the data portability rules. The CMA said it will monitor compliance and could impose further measures if necessary.

Read more:

• Google AI Overviews Reduce Click-Through Rates By 58%, Study Finds
• Why Were Google’s AI Overview Answers Wrong?
• Google’s AI Overview Faces EU Scrutiny Amid Concerns Over Media Fairness

The post UK orders Google to make search rankings fairer and more transparent appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

The Bombay High Court has granted actor Preity Zinta leave to sue Google and 16 other respondents over artificial intelligence (AI) generated deepfake videos, memes, manipulated images and chatbot personas of her circulating online. Justice Abhay Ahuja passed the order on June 16, 2026.

The order is procedural and not a ruling on merits of the case. Zinta’s counsel argued that she is an Indian national who lives and works in Mumbai, and therefore her goodwill, reputation, and persona fall within the court’s jurisdiction. Since the respondents maintain offices outside that jurisdiction and the allegedly infringing content is accessible online worldwide, she required the court’s leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to file the suit in Bombay. The court granted the request, clearing the way for the suit to proceed.

What Zinta will argue in the suit:

• Breach of personality rights, which give a person control over the commercial use of their name, face, voice, and likeness.
• Copyright infringement, including violation of her moral rights under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
• Loss of goodwill and reputational harm caused by the AI-generated content.

The suit fits a widening pattern of personality rights litigation. Indian courts have protected Anil Kapoor, Amitabh Bachchan, Jackie Shroff and Rajat Sharma against AI-driven misuse of their identities. They have also directed Google, in the Sadhguru case, to develop automated deepfake-removal mechanisms and protected Shilpa Shetty in a case that examined whether an AI platform generating a celebrity’s personality can claim safe harbour at all. India still has no codified personality rights law, so courts continue to decide such disputes on a case-by-case basis.

Why it matters: Celebrities continue to approach courts over AI deepfakes even after India notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026. The rules brought synthetically generated information (SGI) within the intermediary framework and required platforms to label AI-generated content, embed traceable metadata, and act on takedown requests within three hours. The rules came into force on February 10, 2026. However, MediaNama’s reporting found that platforms, including Google, had not confirmed compliance at that time.

The Zinta suit raises the very question the rules were designed to address: if a regulatory framework already obliges platforms to police deepfakes, why must individuals still go to court to enforce it?

Also read:

• Delhi HC To Protect Telugu Actor Nagarjuna’s Personality Rights Against AI Misuse
• California passes laws protecting actors’ personality rights
• Delhi HC Protects Rajat Sharma’s Personality Rights Against AI Misuse in Ads

The post Bombay HC Allows Preity Zinta to Sue Google, 16 Others Over AI Deepfakes appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

Telegram, which has challenged the order through a writ petition, sought interim protection against the restriction, arguing that the Centre had unlawfully blocked the entire platform under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. However, Justice Tejas Karia allowed the government to file its reply and supporting documents on June 18 and listed the matter for further hearing at 2:30 PM today. 

The Centre restricted the platform till the “immediate aftermath” of the NEET re-examination, citing the circulation of examination papers and misleading claims of paper leaks originating from the platform. However, Telegram argued that the government blocked the platform despite cooperation. 

Order suffers from arbitrariness and exceeds Section 69A powers: Telegram’s counsel argued that the blocking order was ultra vires the statute meaning it went beyond the powers of the rules, and reflected a “complete non-application of mind.” He contended that Section 69A authorises the government to block specific information, channels, or content, not an entire platform. In response, Mehta argued that “any information can include all information,” suggesting that Section 69A could permit broader blocking measures depending on the circumstances. Notably, the government previously used Section 69A to block multiple chinese apps in 2020 

Referring to lists of channels and content previously flagged by authorities to the platform, counsel argued that Telegram had acted on each request and that the government’s order failed to consider those actions into account. 

Furthermore, He said the Secretary had effectively abdicated his statutory responsibility by merely accepting the designated officer’s findings without independently evaluating Telegram’s responses. Counsel argued that the government had suddenly invoked emergency powers despite ongoing engagement between Telegram and the authorities. 

Telegram says it proactively acted on government requests: Telegram’s counsel told the court that authorities had supplied lists of channels and content through two notices, and that Telegram had acted on both before receiving the notices. Referring to meeting records and written responses, counsel argued that Telegram had explained the steps it had taken and that those measures were absent from the blocking order. He said Telegram prohibited the use of its services for examination-related fraud under its terms of service. 

Counsel further submitted that the company had proactively reviewed content using “a robust combination of advanced AI and human moderation” and had continuously evolved its moderation processes.

Impact on users and constitutional concerns: Telegram also argued that the blocking order had sweeping consequences for legitimate users. Counsel told the court that the platform serves around 150 million users in India, including businesses, educators, and students who rely on it for communication and distribution of study material. He described the order as a “serious intrusion into fundamental rights” and argued that it violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

According to Telegram, the blanket restriction disproportionately affected lawful users who had no connection to the allegedly unlawful activity cited by the government. Article 14 guarantees the fundamental right to equality, while Article 19 protects several freedoms, including freedom of speech and expression and the right to engage in any trade or business.

Also read:

• Telegram CEO Pavel Durov claims Reliance is sabotaging Telegram access for users outside India
• Explained: Is the Telegram restriction in India necessary or disproportionate?
• SEBI bars unregistered advisor after examining Telegram channels, bank details from a complaint

The post “Complete non-application of mind”: Telegram tells Delhi HC on government’s platform restriction appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed contempt proceedings against Google India and Google LLC in the long-running DRS Logistics trademark dispute, holding that the company’s obligations under earlier keyword advertising rulings were narrower than trademark owners had argued. Justice Tejas Karia delivered the judgment on June 15, 2026.

What happened: DRS Logistics, which owns trademarks including “Agarwal Packers and Movers,” “Aggarwal Packers and Movers,” and “DRS Logistics,” accused Google of violating earlier Delhi HC orders protecting the company’s trademark.

The company argued that third-party advertisers continued to use its trademarks in sponsored search results. According to DRS, Google’s search engine was still displaying competitor advertisements and sponsored links when users searched for its protected marks. The company, therefore, sought contempt action, alleging willful disobedience of the court’s earlier directions.

What the court held: 

1. The earlier DRS rulings dealt only with keywords. The court held that the operative directions in the 2021 and 2023 judgments were limited to complaints involving the use of trademarks as keywords.

Those orders required Google to investigate complaints made by DRS alleging that its trademarks were being used as keywords to divert traffic. They did not impose broader obligations concerning the appearance of trademarks in ad text, ad titles, or URLs.

The court noted that the litigation had come to focus primarily on keyword bidding after Google represented to the court that its policies did not permit third parties to use protected trademarks in ad text and ad titles. In response to that representation, DRS’s senior counsel confined the injunction dispute to the narrower question of whether providing a trademark as a keyword to a third party amounted to infringement.

2. Google is not required to proactively monitor advertisements: A central issue was whether Google must independently scan and remove advertisements containing DRS’ trademarks.

The court rejected that interpretation. It held that the earlier judgments did not require Google to proactively monitor advertisements or prevent trademark use before receiving a complaint. Instead, Google’s obligations are triggered after a trademark owner notifies the company about a potentially infringing advertisement.

3. Trademark complaints remain governed by Google’s policy. Although the court declined to find contempt, it reaffirmed that Google remains bound by representations made during the earlier litigation.

Google had informed the court that its advertising policies do not permit third parties to use registered trademarks in ad text, ad titles, or URLs. The court said those commitments remain binding. However, enforcement occurs through Google’s complaint-based trademark policy rather than through any proactive monitoring obligation imposed by the earlier judgments.

4. No contempt because the earlier orders were open to interpretation: The court emphasised that contempt jurisdiction is limited. Courts can punish only clear and willful violations of explicit directions. Here, the judges found that the earlier DRS orders could reasonably be interpreted as applying only to keyword-related complaints. Since Google had acted against the complained-of URLs after receiving notice, the court concluded that willful disobedience had not been established.

The court also noted that the specific URLs complained of in the contempt application had already been taken down by Google following DRS’ notice in June 2025 and in accordance with directions passed by the court during the pendency of the present application. 

What this means: For trademark owners, the judgment means they cannot rely on the DRS rulings to argue that Google must proactively police advertisements for trademark misuse. Instead, they must continue identifying allegedly infringing advertisements and notifying the platform.

For Google, the judgment preserves the complaint-based model reflected in its trademark policies. The company must investigate complaints and act where appropriate, but it is not required to continuously monitor all advertisements for trademark violations.

The decision also creates an interesting contrast with the recent Hindware v Google judgment, where a different Delhi HC bench treated Google’s keyword auction system itself as trademark use and denied the company Section 79 safe harbour protection.

Also read

• CNN takes Perplexity AI to court for copyright and trademark infringement
• Is a word change enough to distinguish trademarks? Delhi HC rules against ‘MakeMyIndiaTrip’
• Google Defends Trademark Ad Policy After Delhi HC’s Hindware Keyword Advertising Ruling

The post Google is not bound to monitor DRS Logistics’ trademark use in ads: Delhi HC appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

Allowing petitions filed by Vikas Taneja, Deepak Singh and Prithviraj Singh, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said: “The writ petitions are allowed…and arrests of the petitioners are declared to be contrary to law… In consequence thereof, the petitioners shall be set at liberty forthwith.”

Arrests followed ED raids: The ED arrested the founders on May 7 as part of a money-laundering investigation into Gameskraft Technologies, an online gaming company. The agency had conducted searches in Bengaluru and the NCR, frozen assets worth about Rs 526 crore and accused the company of cheating users on its real-money rummy platforms.

Earlier High Court stay: The High Court’s ruling comes months after it stayed an earlier ED investigation against Gameskraft in January. At the time, the court noted that the police had already closed the predicate offence underlying the money-laundering case and questioned whether the ED could continue its probe once the case’s foundation had ceased to exist.

ED’s allegations: The ED later argued that multiple FIRs, including complaints registered in Telangana, formed the basis of its investigation and that fresh offences could justify further action. During searches in May, the agency alleged that Gameskraft used bots in online rummy games, operated in states where such gaming faced restrictions, and diverted proceeds through various financial instruments. It also claimed users lost more than Rs 1,100 crore to bot-linked accounts.

Founders challenged action: The founders challenged their arrests before the High Court, arguing that the ED had produced no new material and was attempting to sidestep the court’s earlier stay order. On Tuesday, the court accepted their challenge and ordered their release.

Read more:

• Will Karnataka’s Horse-Racing Betting Bill Set Off A Clash With Centre’s Online Gaming Ban?
• Event Report: Navigating India’s Online Gaming Law, 2025 #NAMA
• What Are The Social Costs And Role Of Self-Regulation In RMG Sector? #NAMA
• Game of skills is gambling if players put money on ‘uncertain outcomes’: SC

The post Karnataka HC says ED arrest of Gameskraft founders illegal, orders their release appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

Banks and NBFCs can no longer engage in “compulsory bundling,” where buying one product means inadvertently buying another. Banks will now be required to get “explicit consent” from users before selling any financial product or service, whether their own or offered through a third party. The changes are part of the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) new framework governing the advertising, marketing, and sale of financial products and services by banks.

What is compulsory bundling, and why has the RBI banned it?

The latest directions of the RBI define “compulsory bundling” as the practice by a bank of making the availability of one product or service conditional upon purchase of another product or service.

For instance, when you apply for a home loan, banks and NBFCs often push an insurance policy alongside it. Their reasoning: an extra insurance policy protects the family if the borrower defaults or dies.

However, this practice was recently called out by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. She argues that if a home loan is already backed by the house itself, why is an unwarranted insurance policy being forced on customers? She is not saying that insurance itself is redundant. However, the problem is when an insurance policy becomes a near-default part of the loan process. When a borrower is unaware of what extra protection the policy actually offers, the practice stops being advice and starts being mis-selling.

Who should be held accountable when the customer does not fully understand what they’ve signed? This is exactly why the RBI has banned compulsory bundling. Even if a product is mandatory and part of a larger service, the person does not need to buy it from the bank or its preferred partner. They must be given an option to buy it elsewhere, the new rules mandate.

Voluntary product packages and complimentary offerings without additional cost will not be labeled as compulsory bundling.

How would consent work under the new RBI framework?

Banks will now be required to get “explicit consent” from users before selling any financial product or service, whether their own or through a third party. Consent may be obtained through:

• physical or digital signatures;
• OTP-based approvals;
• digitally recorded confirmations; or
• clearly demarcated consent sections within agreements

If an application form includes multiple products or services, the nature and features of each product must be laid out very clearly, and consent must be obtained for each product.

The new rules also mandate that customers must have an option to choose which of these products they want to buy and which they want to ignore.

The default consent option must be “No” or “I do not agree.”

Even if consent has been obtained, a product can still be treated as mis-sold if it is not suitable for the customer. The liability shifts from “Did you sign?” to “Why was this sold at all?”

To determine whether a product is suitable for a customer, banks must assess the following:

• Product characteristics
• Features and complexity
• Risk-return profile
• Fee structure
• Investment horizon
• Customer characteristics
• Age
• Income
• Financial literacy
• Risk tolerance

And accountability doesn’t stop at the point of sale. Banks will also be required to seek feedback from customers within 30 days of selling them any financial product or service to ensure they fully understand the features of the product and the risks accompanying it.

If a bank is found to be mis-selling a product, it must refund the entire amount paid by the customer and compensate the latter for any losses. Accountability is no longer optional.

What are the dark patterns identified by RBI, and are they prohibited?

India’s central bank has formally called out 11 dark patterns. It defines a dark pattern as follows:

“Any practice or deceptive design pattern using user interface or user experience interactions on any platform that is designed to mislead or trick users to do something they originally did not intend or want to do, by subverting or impairing the consumer autonomy, decision-making, or choice, amounting to misleading advertisement or unfair trade practice or violation of consumer rights.”

Banks and NBFCs are prohibited from deploying the following dark patterns in their digital interfaces, including apps and websites:

• False urgency: Falsely stating or implying the sense of urgency or scarcity using countdown timers or phrases like “Offer Ends Soon” to trick users into making an immediate purchase.
• Basket sneaking: Adding extra charges, such as payment to charity or donation at the time of checkout, without the consent of the user or pre-disclosing them.
• Confirm shaming: Using text, video, audio or other means to induce a sense of fear or shame or guilt
• Forced action: When users are required to sign up for an unrelated service or provide additional personal data to access a feature or complete a transaction
• Subscription trap: When the option to cancel a subscription is hidden, or a user is forced to provide payment details or authorise auto debit to avail a free subscription, or cancelling a paid subscription requires the user to visit the branch physically or contact customer support.
• Interface interference: Interface interference involves structuring visual elements to steer users toward a particular outcome. This includes highlighting preferred options in bold or bright colours while making alternatives less visible, or defaulting consent settings to “Yes.”
• Bait and switch: Where the product or service served to the user at the end differs from what was initially presented.
• Drip pricing: When prices are not revealed upfront. A loan may be advertised at an attractive rate, while processing fees or additional costs appear only after the user has progressed through multiple screens.
• Disguised advertisement: A practice of posing or masking advertisements as other types of content, such as user-generated content, new articles, or false advertisements designed to blend in with the rest of an interface to trick customers into clicking on them.
• Nagging: When online banking apps repeatedly send requests or notifications to users asking them to enable an additional service, despite the user previously declining them.
• Trick wording: Deliberate use of vague or confusing language, including the use of double negatives in consent checkboxes.

What else has changed? Banks can no longer hide behind intermediaries. Whether a product is mis-sold by a relationship manager, a call-centre executive, or a third-party agent, the liability will be borne by the bank. 

Lenders will only be allowed to send promotional communications if the customer has explicitly consented to receive them. Banks and their partners will now be required to make sales calls and visits within a specific window, between 9 AM and 5 PM. Sales agents must be clearly identified, properly trained, and visibly separate from core bank staff.

Why this matters: The RBI’s directive is proof that dark patterns have emerged as a new form of mis-selling of financial products. Banks must now comply and stop engaging in deceptive marketing tactics. According to a recent LocalCircles survey, 57% of the participants said they encountered basket sneaking on online banking platforms, and 51% were subjected to forced action, while 46% experienced nagging.

For customers, it means fewer surprise add-ons while buying a financial product, as well as fewer complaints about whether they understood what they actually bought. For banks, many of whom act as agents of insurance companies and earn a fee from that, the issue runs deeper. Over the last 10 years, for instance, SBI’s bancassurance revenue has jumped nearly 6x to Rs 2,766 crore. In comparison, its total interest income has only doubled to Rs 4.9 lakh crore over the same period. RBI’s directive may weigh on the sales of banks. But insurance companies will take an even bigger hit, as bancassurance contributes roughly half of the sector’s premiums on average and as much as 80% for some insurers. This could prompt insurtech companies to diversify revenue streams or even change their operating models.

Also read:

• Explained: How the RBI Draft Amendments Seek to Curb Dark Patterns in Banking
• No Dark Patterns? Online Pharmacy Self-Audits Contradict Independent Studies and User Reports
• RTI Shows 25 Platforms Filed Dark Pattern Audits, But None Made Public

The post Compulsory bundling, dark patterns banned: Why the RBI wants banks to stop mis-selling financial products appeared first on MEDIANAMA.