• Date: Thursday, 23 April 2026
• Time: 12:30 PM to 5 PM
• Format: Hybrid Event – In-Person and Virtual (Via Zoom) 
• Venue: Gulmohar Hall, India Habitat Centre, Delhi

Register here (for in-person attendance) | Zoom link (for virtual participation)

Note: The Zoom link is intended for outstation participants only. If you are based in Delhi, please register for in-person attendance.

Here is the full agenda of the discussion:

• 12:30 PM – 1:00 PM |  Lunch and Networking.
  
• 1:00 PM – 1:45 PM |  Session 1: Victims of Censorship in India. 
  10 Minute break
  
• 1:55 PM – 2:45 PM | Session 2: MeitY’s Expanding Mandate: Rule 3(4), the timelines for content takedowns, and the Safe Harbour, in the context of Shreya Singhal and the IT Act.
  
• 2:45 PM – 3:15 PM: Open House Discussion
  10 Minute break
  
• 3:25 PM – 4:15 PM | Session 3: MIB’s Expanded Reach: The IDC, Part III, and Government Oversight of News Content and impact on users online.
  
• 4:15 PM – 4:45 PM: Open House Discussion

Here is the brief breakdown of the sessions: 

Session 1: Victims of Censorship in India

The discussion opens up with the individuals who are directly affected by the online censorship, including through Sahyog portal, the content takedown machinery developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs to regulate online free speech. This session will set the context for subsequent discussions on how the draft amendments, particularly those granting legal force to ministry-issued notices and extending the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s (MIB) Code of Ethics to user-generated news content, may affect online free speech and reinforce existing censorship mechanisms.

Session 2: MeitY’s Expanding Mandate: Rule 3(4), the timelines for content takedowns, and the Safe Harbour, in the context of Shreya Singhal and the IT Act.

Some of the key themes: 

• Implications of Rule 3(4) for intermediary liability and safe harbour.
• Impact of evolving executive directions on platform compliance.
• Shift from “actual knowledge” to continuous compliance expectations.
• Operational challenges posed by compressed takedown timelines.
• Risks of over-compliance and automated content removal.

Followed by open house discussion  

Session 3: MIB’s Expanded Reach: The IDC, Part III, and Government Oversight of News Content and impact on users online.

Some of the key themes: 

• Expansion of Part III to user-generated news content.
• Role and powers of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC).
• Implications for individuals posting or sharing news content.
• Constitutional concerns and judicial scrutiny.
• Impact on news publishers and digital platforms.

Followed by open house discussion.

Register here (for in-person attendance) | Zoom link (for virtual participation)

Note:

• Registration does not guarantee attendance. In case you fit our mandate for the intended audience, we’ll send you a confirmation before the event.
• Your contact information will never be shared with anyone outside of MediaNama.

Note: This discussion is being organised with support from Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), Centre For Communication Governance (CCG) and DIGI Pub.

The post Agenda: IT Rules and the future of online speech in India, Delhi, April 23 #NAMA appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

Who is named: The filing names X Corp, Instagram, Google LLC (for YouTube), Facebook, Threads, and Meta Platforms as defendants, alongside 17 named YouTube channels and one John Doe defendant.

John Doe clause: The filing includes a John Doe clause, known in Indian courts as an Ashok Kumar clause, which allows Motorola to add unidentified future defendants as it identifies them. The filing suggests that any person who criticises Motorola’s products online could face legal action without prior notice. MediaNama has previously tracked how John Doe orders with ex-parte injunctions have led to collateral takedowns of unrelated content, and covered similar orders by private companies against social media posts.

Apar Gupta, lawyer and founding director of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), told MediaNama that John Doe orders were designed for piracy cases involving genuinely unidentifiable infringers, and their migration into defamation litigation marks a significant expansion of judicial remedy.

“The chilling effect operates before any creator is even named, because the order’s existence signals to the entire ecosystem that critical content carries legal exposure,” Gupta said.

Platforms faced with subsequent takedown requests citing the John Doe order, he added, will typically comply rather than litigate.

What Motorola seeks: The plaint seeks a permanent injunction restraining defendants, their agents, reviewers, critics, and “any other persons claiming through them” from:

• Publishing, posting, sharing, uploading, streaming, or circulating content it describes as false, defamatory, derogatory, malicious, or unverified about Motorola mobile phones.
• Publishing reviews, reaction videos, community polls, and boycott campaigns.
• Any future publication of similar content, including by unidentified defendants added later.

Motorola characterises the content as a “coordinated, motivated, commercially harmful” campaign designed to create panic among consumers. It cites specific statements as defamatory: “Motorola phone exploded,” “Don’t buy Motorola phones,” and “Motorola is unsafe/blast phones.”

Motorola filed an accompanying interim injunction application on 23 March, arguing that it has established a prima facie case for urgent relief and that monetary compensation would be an inadequate remedy.

Court order in effect: YouTube creator @ParasmeSaurabh posted on X that he received a court order at 2am directing YouTube to block his videos in India, with no prior notice to creators. Two video links he cited are currently unavailable in India. The order’s date and case number are not publicly available.

Courts grant ex-parte interim injunctions, meaning orders passed without hearing the other side, only when a plaintiff establishes urgency and irreparable harm. According to @ParasmeSaurabh’s post, the order came without prior notice to creators, meaning defendants had no opportunity to contest the takedowns before they took effect.

In a reply to @ParasmeSaurabh’s post, YouTube creator Techno Ruhez (@AmreliaRuhez) posted on X that he spoke to Motorola’s senior management, who told him the notice was “a mistake from their 3rd party social/ORM agency” and that they are actively working on fixing it.

Gupta told MediaNama that defendants have two primary routes to challenge the order. They can file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) before the same court seeking vacation or modification of the ex-parte order, on grounds that they were not heard or that the balance of convenience has been misapplied.

They can also appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) to the High Court against the grant of injunction. Where content is truthful, fair comment, or first-person experience, defendants can invoke the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bloomberg v. Zee against pre-trial injunctions in defamation matters.

“The practical difficulty is cost and capacity, because many named creators are individuals without counsel,” Gupta said.

360-plus URLs, posts going back to 2019: The plaint’s annexure lists over 360 URLs across YouTube and X, with upload dates going as far back as 2019, meaning Motorola seeks to suppress content that has existed for up to seven years. View counts range from under 100 to over six lakh. Named channels include Technology Secrets, Bhavesh Rai, TechZen, Kunal Malhotra, SparkNherd, and Bijnori Tech, among others.

The annexure targets not only videos alleging safety defects but also unfavourable reviews and user commentary, bundling both categories into a single injunction application.

Gupta further added that naming every major platform alongside individual creators strips safe harbour from the outset of litigation rather than at its end. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Section 79 immunity is lost only upon receipt of a court order or a properly issued government notification. By suing the platforms directly and obtaining an ex-parte order, the plaintiff converts a process meant to test content on its merits into a one-shot removal mechanism.

“The rational platform response is compliance, because testing the order means betting their statutory immunity on contested speech,” Gupta said.

The structural consequence, he added, is that intermediary liability doctrine, which the Supreme Court carefully calibrated to protect user speech, gets bypassed through civil procedure.

Direct challenge to platform safe harbour: By naming all major platforms simultaneously, Motorola directly challenges the safe harbour protection platforms hold under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Section 79 protects intermediaries, meaning platforms that host user-generated content, from liability as long as they follow due diligence norms. Naming them as co-defendants argues that they are active participants in the alleged defamation rather than neutral intermediaries.

If the Bengaluru court accepts Motorola’s argument, it sets a precedent that hosting and recommending critical content could strip platforms of safe harbour protection, providing a template for consumer electronics brands in India to use litigation as a content moderation tool.

The suit arrives as MeitY‘s draft Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2026 propose making compliance with government advisories mandatory for platforms to retain Section 79 protections. Critics including the Software Freedom Law Centre India (Software Freedom Law Centre) and the IFF have warned that the proposed changes incentivise platforms to over-remove content rather than risk losing immunity. A court ruling eroding Section 79 in a private defamation suit could compound that pressure.

Gupta added that while the IT Rules architecture and the civil defamation route run on parallel tracks, they converge on the same outcome. “They structurally incentivise over-removal of online criticism, with the user whose speech is taken down having the least effective remedy of any party in the system,” he said.

What creators say: Two creators named in the suit told TechCrunch they learned about the case only after X’s support team emailed them stating that the suit referenced their accounts. One said the post Motorola cited related to a verified incident, and that Motorola had itself replaced the device in question. “Brand is just mentally harassing us, and they want to set an example,” the creator said, adding the suit would affect their coverage of the brand.

What industry says: Sunil Raina, Managing Director of smartphone brand Lava International, posted on X: “When faced with criticism, you have two choices: intimidate or improve. One silences the feedback. The other silences the need for it.”

Madhav Sheth, Chief Executive Officer of smartphone brand Artificial Intelligence Plus (AI+) and former Realme India head, took a different position. He posted on X that: “freedom of speech is not a license for defamation” and warned that any platform or individual found spreading fake news or unverified claims would face immediate legal action. He added that AI+ could produce money trails to prove its case legally if needed.

Questions sent to Motorola India:

1. Why did Motorola name platforms as co-defendants rather than filing takedown requests under Section 79 of the IT Act?
2. The annexure lists content going back to 2019. Why is Motorola seeking to suppress content that is up to seven years old?
3. The prayer clause seeks to restrain “any other persons claiming through” the defendants. Does Motorola consider all future critical coverage of its products potentially actionable?
4. Does Motorola have a comment on the chilling effect this suit may have on independent product reviews?

MediaNama sent queries to Motorola India via its press contact form and has reached out to YouTube, the IFF, and a named creator for comment. The story will be updated upon receiving responses.

Update, April 16, 2026, 5:15PM: This story has been updated to include responses from Apar Gupta, lawyer and founding director of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF).

Also read:

• Gadkari files Rs 50 crore defamation suit against YouTuber over video based on Caravan report
• Karnataka HC asks who has the power to block defamatory content, MeitY or MIB?
• PepsiCo gets John Doe order to take down thousands of posts on social media
• Draft IT Rules explained: What MeitY’s amendments mean for platform liability and content takedowns

The post Motorola gets court order to block YouTube videos critical of its phones in India appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

The report found that the Apple App Store and Google Play Store not only host these so-called “nudify” apps but also promote them through search results, autocomplete suggestions, and sponsored advertisements. These apps use artificial intelligence (AI) to digitally remove clothing from photos of real people, generate pornographic videos, and create sexually explicit AI chatbots.

Massive Reach and Revenue: TTP discovered that users have downloaded the Nudify apps identified during its investigation 483 million times, generating more than $122 million in lifetime revenue. Alarmingly, app stores rated 31 of these apps as suitable for minors, raising concerns, particularly amid increasing incidents of sexual deepfake abuse in schools.

How the Investigation Was Conducted: The investigation builds on TTP’s January 2026 report, which identified more than 100 such apps across both platforms. For the latest study, researchers conducted searches on new iOS and Android devices using terms such as “nudify,” “undress,” “deepfake,” “deepnude,” “adult AI,” “face swap,” and “AI NSFW.”

• 46 unique apps appeared in Apple App Store searches.
• 49 unique apps appeared in the Google Play Store searches.
• 18 Apple apps (39.1%) and 20 Google Play apps (40.8%) were capable of rendering women nude or scantily clad.

In several cases, sponsored ads for these apps appeared at the top of search results, and autocomplete suggestions led users to additional Nudify-related queries, increasing their visibility.

Apps and Features Identified: Many of the apps tested allowed users to upload photos of real individuals and generate explicit images or videos. Some face-swapping tools allowed users to place a person’s face onto nude bodies, while others enabled the creation of sexualized AI companions based on real people. Even when certain apps blocked full nudity, they often produced images of women in bikinis or sexually suggestive poses, which can still violate platform policies against degrading or objectifying individuals.

Examples of apps identified in the investigation include Best Body AI — Fashion Editor, AI Replace & Remove — Fill App, FaceTool: Face Swap & Generate, DreamFace: AI Video Generator, RemakeFace: AI Face Swap, and Reface: Face Swap AI Generator, many of which allow users to generate nude or sexually suggestive images, swap faces onto explicit bodies, or create AI-generated videos.

Company Responses and Enforcement: Apple declined to comment on the findings. However, after TTP and Bloomberg News alerted the company, it removed 15 apps from its App Store.

Google said enforcement actions are ongoing. Google spokesperson Dan Jackson said, “When violations of our policies are reported to us, we investigate and take appropriate action.” He also noted that age ratings on the Google Play Store are assigned by the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC). Following the investigation, Google removed seven apps.

Policy and Privacy Concerns: The findings highlight gaps between the companies’ stated policies and the functioning of their app store ecosystems. Apple prohibits apps containing “overtly sexual or pornographic material,” while Google bars apps that “contain or promote sexual content” or “claim to undress people or see through clothing.” Despite these rules, TTP concluded that both platforms play an active role in amplifying the reach of such applications.

The report also flagged privacy risks associated with some apps subject to Chinese law, which could potentially compel developers to share user data, including sensitive manipulated images, with government authorities.

The TTP findings echo concerns previously raised in India. A December 2025 report by MediaNama highlighted the widespread availability of deepfake-generating apps on the Google Play Store, exposing gaps in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s (MeitY) regulatory approach. While MeitY issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in November 2025 requiring intermediaries to remove non-consensual intimate imagery within 24 hours and proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, these measures largely focus on social media platforms. The report noted that app stores, key distribution channels for such AI tools, remain outside the scope of specific regulatory guidelines, allowing applications capable of generating non-consensual sexual deepfakes to continue operating despite platform policies.

Broader Implications: TTP’s investigation suggests that Apple and Google are not merely passive hosts but key intermediaries in the spread of AI tools capable of generating non-consensual sexual deepfakes. The companies may also benefit financially through advertising placements and commissions on in-app purchases and subscriptions.

As concerns about the misuse of AI to target women and minors grow, the report indicates that the role of major app store operators is likely to face increased regulatory and public scrutiny.

Read More:

• Event Report: Regulating For Deepfakes in India, November 5, Delhi
• How Should the Government have Gone About Deepfake Regulation? #NAMA
• Limits of Labelling: Unpacking India’s Pursuit to Combat ‘Synthetically Generated Information’`

The post Apple and Google promote ‘nudify’ apps despite policy bans, report finds appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

Under the current framework, registration is not uniformly mandatory. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2025 requires e-sports to first obtain recognition under the National Sports Governance Act and then register with the OGA. However, for online social games (OSGs), registration remains optional.

Removal of ‘material change’ definition: The government is also considering removing the definition of “material change” from the rules, even though the concept will continue to apply in practice. The draft had defined it as changes to features or revenue models that could alter a game’s classification. 

Officials clarified that re-evaluation would still be required: “If the nature of the game changes, the determination [about whether it is an OMG or not] is no longer valid. If I have determined your game [to not be an OMG] but you change it, that means the old determination is no longer valid. You should come and get your game determined again.” They added that a registration certificate depends on the original determination, and if conditions change, the certificate effectively becomes invalid.

Changes to OGA composition: Earlier, the draft proposed a MeitY chairperson with five members, including joint secretary-level officials and two director-level experts. Now, the government is considering a structure with six members drawn from five ministries: home affairs, law and justice, finance, information and broadcasting, and youth affairs and sports. It may remove the two director-level positions. Additionally, the quorum requirement could increase from one-third to half of the authority’s strength.

GAC removal from the grievance process: Separately, MeitY is considering removing the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) from the grievance redressal chain. The draft rules had allowed users to escalate complaints from gaming platforms to the GAC and then to the OGA. The revised proposal would instead route appeals from the platform to the OGA and finally to the MeitY secretary as the appellate authority.

Also read

• Online Gaming Authority of India website live, appears to be under construction, as rules still not notified
• Govt. has blocked 8,376 betting, gambling and gaming URLs
• Lowdown: Parliamentary panel recommends mandatory KYC for social media, dating, gaming apps and a new cybercrime law

The post National security could be used to mandate registration of online games appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

The service is not a standalone app but is offered as an add-on within JioHotstar, starting at Rs 49 per month. This makes it one of the most affordable HBO Max options worldwide.

What’s driving the content push with flagship franchises and originals? The HBO Max hub offers a wide range of premium international content, including acclaimed HBO and Max Originals, major franchises like Harry Potter and the DC Universe, and upcoming titles such as new seasons of Euphoria and House of the Dragon. This addition strengthens JioHotstar’s position in India’s premium streaming market by attracting higher-paying urban audiences seeking high-quality global content.

The strategic context behind consolidation and prior licensing deals: The deal formalises a relationship developed over several years. HBO content was licensed to Disney+ Hotstar until 2023, then moved to JioCinema.

After the 2025 merger of JioCinema and Disney+ Hotstar into JioHotstar, Warner Bros. Discovery consolidated its presence with a branded hub, replacing fragmented licensing agreements.

What this means for India’s streaming market: “India is one of the most vibrant streaming markets globally, and in JioHotstar, we have a partner with unmatched scale and a deep understanding of local audiences,” said James Gibbons, president of Asia-Pacific at Warner Bros. Discovery.

For JioHotstar, this partnership supports its goal to become a content aggregator by combining global and local offerings on a single platform.

For Warner Bros. Discovery, the deal focuses on expanding distribution rather than immediate monetisation, leveraging JioHotstar’s reach to strengthen brand presence in a price-sensitive market.

However, the success of this strategy is uncertain. Although premium international shows attract urban audiences, local-language content still dominates mass viewership in India, raising concerns about the long-term revenue potential of the latter.

Also Read:

• JioHotstar launches ‘Tadka’, eyes IPL traffic and ad-led growth
• As Paramount Bids for Warner Bros, Rivaling Netflix, What Does It Mean for Jio Hotstar?
• JioHotstar’s 503M Monthly Active Users Drive Big Quarter for Reliance in Q4FY25 Amid IPL, ICC Boost

The post HBO Max enters India via JioHotstar partnership appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

These jokes sparked online outrage, resulting in abuse from fans, demands for an apology from members of Pawan Kalyan’s Jana Sena Party, and attempts to heckle him at stand-up venues. Jana Sena member Bade Venkata Krishna filed a complaint at the Kakinada police station, following which AP police detained Katikala in Prayagraj three days after the FIR was registered, while he was visiting his parents.

In the 30-minute stand-up video, he also mentioned other non-Konidela actors, including Naresh, Jr NTR, and Nani. However, the following two jokes triggered outrage online.

• Joke on Pawan Kalyan’s two divorces: Referring to Niharika Konidela’s divorce, he said they could learn from Pawan Kalyan on how to handle a divorce, calling him the most “experienced” person in the family. For context, Pawan Kalyan has been divorced twice. He said men should learn how to handle a divorce from Kalyan, as neither of his former wives accused him of mistreatment or abuse and referred to them as “happy breakups”. — [Timestamped Video]
• Joke on feminism: He also joked that Ram Charan was a “feminist” because he appeared secure despite Upasana Konidela’s wealth, due to the inheritance of Apollo Hospitals. — [Timestamped Video]

Jokes were meant to normalise feminism and divorce, he said, speaking with The News Minute. However, he also pointed out that Pawan Kalyan’s political rivals, i.e., YSRCP members, began circulating video clips online to mock the actor-turned-politician.

You can watch the full stand-up video on his YouTube channel: Babu lake Baabu | Telugu Standup Comedy by Anudeep Katikala [Video]

This isn’t the first time Pawan Kalyan fans have targeted a stand-up comedian: In July 2023, Hyderabad-based Hriday Ranjan, a former film critic, cracked jokes about Pawan Kalyan’s political life, which prompted online abuse from the actor’s fans, including violent threats, after his number was leaked.

The police charged him under Section 67 of the IT Act, which prescribes punishment for publishing or transmitting “obscene material” in electronic form, along with the following sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):

• Statements related to public mischief – Section  353(2)
• Any word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman – Section 79 
• Defamation – Section 356(2)

Previous cases of “public mischief” that affected online free speech:

• In April 2025, Lucknow Police registered sedition cases against University of Lucknow assistant professor Madri Kakoti (known online as Dr Medusa) and folk singer Neha Singh Rathore, according to a report by The Wire. [Link]
• In May 2025, Sonipat Police filed an FIR against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad for his social media posts about Operation Sindoor. [Link]
• In June 2025, Kolkata Police arrested a law student, Sharmishtha Panoli, for a video she posted on May 7, in which she allegedly made offensive statements against Prophet Muhammad. [Link]

After the controversy involving Ranveer Allahabadia (a.k.a. BeerBiceps) and Samay Raina related to India’s Got Talent, scrutiny of so-called “obscene” content and online free speech intensified, leading to attempts to regulate online content. For instance, in July 2025, the Supreme Court of India called for an “open debate” to draft guidelines to regulate online content and speech with stakeholder consultation. “Suppose a race takes place between Article 19 and Article 21, Article 21 has to trump Article 19,” Justice Surya Kant reportedly said. Similarly, in November 2025, media reports indicated that the government may define “obscene content” and amend the IT Rules accordingly.

Read some of MediaNama’s coverage on Public Mischief:

• What Can Be Called ‘Public Mischief’ Online? Why Section 353 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita Raises Free Speech Fears
• Free Speech or Public Mischief: How common are public mischief cases in India?
• Takedown Notices Served for Over 1100 Posts In A Year—What India Deemed Inciting “Public Mischief” on X?

The post Andhra Pradesh police detain stand-up comedian Anudeep Katikala over YouTube video jokes appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

The case, filed in a federal court in San Francisco, claims Google has created a monopoly by controlling how apps are distributed and how payments are processed on Android devices. Aptoide is seeking court orders to stop these practices and is also asking for triple damages.

Allegations of Anticompetitive Conduct: Aptoide, which says it is the world’s third-largest Android app store, argues that Google’s conduct has limited its ability to compete despite offering lower commissions to developers and cheaper options for users. The company claims Google restricts access to popular apps and pushes developers toward its own Play Store and related services.

In its filing, Aptoide said it could have applied more pressure on Google’s pricing and policies, “but for Google’s ‘anticompetitive chokehold’ that shuts out smaller rivals.”

Earlier in October 2018, Aptoide had secured a legal victory against Google when a Portuguese court ordered the tech giant to stop removing the Aptoide app from users’ devices without their knowledge. The company was also among the original complainants in the European Commission’s Android antitrust case that led to a record €4.34 billion fine against Google.

The Epic Games verdict: This lawsuit comes amid increasing regulatory and judicial scrutiny of Google’s business practices across multiple markets. In December 2023, a U.S. jury ruled in favour of Epic Games, concluding that Google had maintained an illegal monopoly in the Android app distribution and in-app billing markets. The verdict marked a significant turning point in global efforts to rein in the company’s control over the Android ecosystem.

Court-Ordered Reforms to Google Play: Following the Epic Games verdict, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Google in October 2024 to implement sweeping reforms aimed at opening the Android ecosystem. These measures included allowing third-party app stores to be distributed via the Play Store, prohibiting exclusive agreements with developers and device manufacturers, and preventing Google from mandating the use of its Play Billing system. The remedies were designed to “level the playing field” for rival app distribution platforms.

Proposed Settlement with Epic: More recently, in November 2025, Google and Epic Games proposed a settlement under which Google agreed to make it easier for users to download and install third-party app stores and to allow developers to direct users to alternative payment methods. The proposal included capped service fees of 9% or 20% on transactions using alternative billing systems, signalling a broader shift toward increased flexibility for developers while maintaining the tech giant’s security framework.

Broader Antitrust Scrutiny: Google’s dominance has also been scrutinised in adjacent digital markets. In August 2024, a U.S. District Court found the company to be a monopolist in the general search market under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, citing exclusionary agreements and the “power of defaults” that limited competition and innovation. These findings reinforce concerns about Google’s broader strategy of maintaining market power through contractual and technological controls.

Aptoide’s case suggests that despite the Epic litigation and subsequent court-ordered changes, smaller rivals still believe Google continues to hold substantial power over Android app distribution.

Read More:

• Epic Sues Google and Samsung Over Alleged App Store Antitrust Collusion
• Here are the changes Epic Games wants Google Play Store to make after winning their lawsuit
• Epic wins lawsuit against Google Play in the US
• The secret deals offered by Google to lure major apps to Play Store

The post Aptoide sues Google for app store monopoly, alleges ‘anticompetitive chokehold’ appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

How the case escalated: The account “Lexi Howard’s Cat” is no longer online after HBO initiated a DMCA takedown notice on March 31 and later filed a subpoena in a California federal court. It is unclear whether the account was suspended by the platform or deleted by its operator, but the timing suggests that legal pressure likely played a role.

Despite the account’s removal, HBO’s legal actions continue. Under the DMCA subpoena, X Corp. may still be required to provide identifying information such as email addresses, IP logs, access history, and other metadata. Platforms often retain this data even after account deletion, allowing rights holders to identify individuals retrospectively.

HBO’s response is part of a wider industry trend toward stricter enforcement against leaks. Past piracy and leak incidents involving Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon have prompted the company to increase social media monitoring.

Are spoilers even copyright infringement? A central issue in this case is the nature of the alleged infringement.

• The original takedown described the content as “video/audiovisual recording.”
• The court filing later characterised it as “summaries of unpublished… plots.”

This distinction is important because copyright law protects expression, not ideas. Plot summaries may occupy a legal grey area unless they include substantial creative elements.

However, HBO also claims the account provided access to unpublished material, which, if proven, strengthens its infringement argument.

What happens next: X has been given a deadline (reportedly April 23) to respond to the subpoena. Both the platform and the account holder may challenge the request; however, no objections have been reported to date.

From subpoenas to arrests, how India’s response compares: The Tamil Nadu Cyber Crime Wing recently arrested six individuals for leaking the Tamil film Jana Nayagan online and took action against over 300 illegal links hosting pirated content.

Police registered cases under the Information Technology Act, the Copyright Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. They also seized digital devices used to upload and distribute pirated content. Special teams were formed to trace the source of the leak, analyse digital evidence, and identify others involved in its dissemination.

Authorities have blocked over 300 infringing links on websites, cloud storage platforms, and social media, and continue to monitor online channels to prevent further circulation. Officials have warned that sharing or downloading pirated material is a cognisable offence, making both distributors and consumers potentially liable.

Read More:

• Anna’s Archive Leaks 300TB Spotify Music Data, Exposing AI Training Concern from Pirated Content
• 16 Billion Passwords Exposed in Massive Cybersecurity Breach: CERT-In Warns Users
• Video: Journalist on Trial: What the Debayan Roy Aadhaar Case Means for Press Freedom

The post HBO Pushes X to Unmask User Behind Euphoria Season 3 Spoilers appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

The Delhi High Court (HC) has directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to take action against Canadian domain name registrar Tucows Domains Inc. within two weeks in a copyright infringement case involving the Premier League.

What did the Delhi HC order say? In an order dated April 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that Tucows Domains Inc. had displayed “scant regard” for the orders of the Court.

“This is unpalatable and unacceptable and appears to be clear defiance of the orders of this Court as also the previous orders passed by this Court, which were complied with after coercive measures were undertaken by this Court,” said Justice Gedela.

The Delhi HC emphasised that Tucows Domains Inc. is offering its services and products in India and, therefore, is bound by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

“It cannot be that the entity offers its goods and services in India and is able to appropriate financial gains and yet remain defiant and not submit to the jurisdiction of this Court,” the order reads.

The Delhi HC further observed that internet service providers (ISPs) and domain name registrars (DNRs) operating in India are obligated to appoint grievance officers to ensure compliance with court orders and IT Rules, 2021. However, Tucows was not in compliance with the local laws.

Tucows challenges the Delhi HC’s jurisdiction: The remarks followed Tucows Domains Inc.’s refusal to comply with an order issued by the Delhi HC in May 2025 requiring the DNR to block URLs found to be illegally hosting copyrighted content related to the Premier League.

• In an email dated September 30, 2025, the company said it wouldn’t block infringing URLs without a valid court order issued in Canada, Germany, Denmark, or the US.

Background of the case: The lawsuit was filed in 2025 by the Football Association Premier League, the organising body for football clubs in England and Wales, against SportsHub.Stream, Tucows Domains Inc., and several other websites hosting infringing material.

• These websites were found to have hosted English Premier League matches illegally throughout April 2025, thereby infringing on the plaintiff’s copyrighted works.

• While the Delhi HC, in its May 2025 order, directed domain name registrars, including Tucows Domains Inc., to block URLs carrying infringing content, the latter failed to comply with the directions even after several months.

Why this matters: This is not the first time Tucows Domains Inc. has drawn the ire of the Delhi HC in a copyright infringement case. In November 2022, the court had directed DoT and MeitY to file a status report on the action taken against non-compliant DNRs, including Tucows, whose platforms were found to be illegally streaming Asia Cup matches and thereby infringing Star India’s copyright works.

• Consequently, the DoT blocked the domain name ‘www.tucows.com’ in March 2023. While the ban has since been lifted, Tucows has not clarified whether it has complied with the previous court orders requiring it to block infringing URLs linked to it and to appoint grievance officers in compliance with the IT Rules, 2021. The case demonstrates that foreign intermediaries continue to host unlawful content on their websites in defiance of court orders and despite coercive government measures.

• As per the recent amendments to IT Rules, 2021, intermediaries are prohibited from hosting content that infringes on any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary rights. If such unlawful content is hosted, the intermediary must remove it or disable access to it within three hours of receiving a court order or a government notification.

Previous instances of the Delhi HC blocking orders

• March 2026: The Delhi High Court issued global blocking orders directing ISPs to restrict access and to DNRs to suspend 79 websites involved in illegal streaming of Champions League content.
• December 2025: The Delhi HC granted a Dynamic+ injunction to Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Netflix, Disney Enterprises, Apple Inc., and Crunchyroll LLC, restraining dozens of websites from infringing their copyrighted works and directing domain name registrars and internet service providers to suspend and block access to these websites in India.
• June 2025: Ahead of the Indian Premier League and the England Tour of India 2025, the Delhi HC granted a superlative injunction directing the real-time blocking of URLs and mobile applications that illegally streamed cricket matches, for which Star India Private Limited held broadcast and streaming rights. Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed the immediate suspension of identified rogue websites.
• June 2024: Similarly, the Delhi HC directed the Indian government to issue blocking orders against streaming sites that illegally hosted the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2024.

Also Read:

• Delhi HC Directs ISPs, Domain Registrars to Suspend 79 Rogue Sites Streaming UEFA Champions League
• Govt’s Anti-Piracy Nodal Officers Receive Only Nine Complaints Since 2023: RTI
• Is Blanket IP Blocking Justified? La Liga vs Cloudflare on Piracy Enforcement

The post Delhi HC directs DoT, MeitY to take action against Tucows for failing to take down infringing URLs in Premier League case appeared first on MEDIANAMA.

One Reddit poster wrote: “The Anthropic Team just saw all of my conversations and locked me out.” The user added that they are on the Pro Plan and over 18 and are attempting to appeal the decision. They add that Anthropic is using Yoti for age verification via digital ID, facial scan, or biometrics. Comments state some accounts have been reinstated after submitting ID. Another said their subscription was refunded after being wrongly flagged, and “my projects are completely broken now”. 

Anthropic’s policy: In a December 2025 announcement, Anthropic said it requires all Claude users to be 18 or older and asks them to affirm their age at sign-up. It stated its classifiers flag conversations where users self-identify as under 18, triggering review and possible suspension, and that it is developing systems to detect subtler signals. Meanwhile, it has also said that app store age verification in some US states may prevent under-18 users from creating or signing into Claude on the mobile app.

Age verification and privacy: An open letter signed by over 400 scientists and researchers warns that age verification systems expand the collection of sensitive personal data, including biometrics, behavioural signals, and contextual information. It states these systems introduce risks of misuse by providers, third-party access, and data breaches. Further, the signatories say such tools can produce high error rates and biased outcomes, while enabling broader tracking and profiling as they link to legacy identity infrastructures. 

As adoption grows, they caution that privacy risks will scale across services. Notably, an October 2025 breach at Discord exposed around 70,000 images of government IDs submitted for age verification.

Questions for Anthropic: MediaNama has reached out to Anthropic with the following questions. The article will be updated when we receive a response.

• What specific signals or behavioural indicators do your classifiers rely on to flag accounts as potentially under 18, beyond explicit self-identification in conversations?
• What is the measured accuracy of these systems, including false positive rates, and how have you evaluated them across different user groups?
• What safeguards are in place to minimise wrongful suspensions, particularly for paying subscribers, and how often are such decisions overturned on appeal?
• When an account is flagged, what level of access do human reviewers have to user conversations and data during the review process?

Also read

• Andhra Pradesh explores DigiLocker age tokens for social media curbs on children aged 13-16
• Communications and Information Technology Committee calls for comprehensive AI law, age-based restrictions for social media platforms
• Australia extends age verification rules to porn sites, AI chatbots, and adult games 

The post Claude users say accounts suspended after being incorrectly flagged as minors appeared first on MEDIANAMA.