The Competition Commission of India asked the NCLAT to clarify whether the privacy protections upheld in its November ruling, including detailed disclosure and genuine opt-in/opt-out consent, also apply when WhatsApp shares user data with Meta for advertising.

The tribunal had removed the earlier five-year ban on using WhatsApp data for ads but kept strict safeguards for non-service-related sharing.

The CCI argues that the judgment treats user consent as a single guiding standard, meaning advertising data should not be exempt.

Meta and WhatsApp oppose the request, saying the order is unambiguous and any challenge must be through review, not clarification.

[WhatsApp LLC v CCI; Meta Platforms Inc. v CCI]

A Munich court held that ChatGPT infringed copyright by reproducing protected German song lyrics, ruling in favour of GEMA in a case concerning nine works.

The court found that generating altered or partial versions of copyrighted lyrics amounted to unauthorised derivative works under German copyright law. It clarified that the use of copyrighted material during AI training does not shield the platform from liability for infringing outputs.

The court, however, rejected GEMA’s ancillary claim alleging violation of the authors’ general personal rights relating to attribution of modified lyrics. The ruling underscores platform liability for AI-generated content that reproduces protected creative expressions.

[GEMA v OpenAI]

The Union Government notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025, introducing enhanced safeguards for the processing of children’s personal data.

The Rules require online platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent through reliable methods that confirm the parent is an identifiable adult. Significant Data Fiduciaries must conduct annual data protection impact assessments and independent audits to ensure compliance.

In the event of a data breach, platforms must promptly notify affected users and the Data Protection Board of India, which will operate entirely through a digital mechanism. The Rules aim to strengthen accountability, transparency, and protection standards across all entities handling children’s data.

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the increasing “digital arrest” scams in which fraudsters impersonate law enforcement officials to extort money from citizens.

The Court noted the grave threat these cybercrimes pose to personal liberty under Article 21 and public trust in legal institutions.

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) sought intervention, urging comprehensive action to curb the menace. The Court emphasised the need for stricter enforcement of existing cyber laws and enhanced cross-border cooperation to apprehend offenders.

The initiative marks a significant step toward addressing digital extortion tactics exploiting fear of prosecution through virtual intimidation.

[In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents]

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the misuse of Artificial Intelligence in the judiciary, with Chief Justice BR Gavai remarking that even judges have seen morphed images of themselves. 

The Court was hearing a PIL seeking a legislative or policy framework to regulate the use of Generative AI (GenAI) in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.

The petition highlighted risks of “hallucinations,” fake case laws, and AI bias, arguing that such arbitrariness violates Article 14.

Observing that GenAI’s opacity could undermine fairness and accuracy in justice delivery, the Bench adjourned the matter for two weeks for detailed consideration.

[Kartikeya Rawal v Union of India]

Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant warned that artificial intelligence tools are increasingly being weaponised to target women journalists through deepfakes, doctored visuals, and online harassment.

Speaking at the 31st anniversary of the Indian Women’s Press Corps (IWPC) in New Delhi, he said such misuse of technology threatens privacy, dignity, and press freedom by spreading false narratives and psychological harm.

Justice Kant called for strong institutional protocols and ethical regulations to protect women journalists and victims of manipulated content.

Justice Kant urged media bodies to prioritise digital safety, promote accountability, and uphold responsible journalism in the age of unregulated AI. 

Bengaluru-based market data analyst Chandrakkanth Patil, proprietor of 915trade, filed a passing-off suit against Billionbrains Garage Ventures Pvt Ltd, a Groww group company, before the Thiruvananthapuram District Court.

Patil alleged that the defendant launched a deceptively similar website, “www.915.trade.com,” misusing his goodwill and confusing customers, and claimed prior use of the coined mark “915trade” since 2015 and its domain “www.915trade.com” since 2024, offering subscription-based securities analysis.

The suit sought a permanent injunction, damages with 12% interest, rendition of accounts, and costs.

The Court issued notice on October 14 and will hear the case next on November 22. 

[Chandrakkanth Patil v. Billionbrains Garage Ventures Pvt Ltd (BGV)]

The Delhi High Court directed Google LLC to remove two YouTube channels within 36 hours for hosting deepfake videos infringing upon journalist Rajat Sharma’s personality rights.

The Court further ordered Google to furnish Sharma with the subscriber, contact, and monetisation details of the said channels within one week. The Court also permitted Sharma to notify Google of any future deepfake content, requiring the platform to remove such material within 48 hours of notice.

The Court emphasised that intermediaries must adopt proactive technological measures to identify and remove identical or re-uploaded content, observing that plaintiffs cannot be burdened with the continuous task of tracking online violations. 

[Rajat Sharma v. Google LLC]

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 19-year-old accused in a cybercrime case, imposing strict conditions including a ban on using social media apps such as Telegram and WhatsApp during trial.

Justice Sameer Jain noted the accused’s young age and that the chargesheet had been filed. The Court directed him to disclose all bank account details, operate only one Aadhaar-linked account and SIM card, cooperate with the police, and mark monthly attendance.

The accused faced charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Information Technology Act, and the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. Bail was granted subject to strict compliance with these terms.

[Manraj v State of Rajasthan]

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has granted partial relief to WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms Inc. in their challenge to the Competition Commission of India’s order that imposed a ₹213.14 crore penalty.

While upholding the fine, the Tribunal struck down CCI’s restriction under Section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, which barred WhatsApp from sharing user data with Meta entities for advertising.

NCLAT held that such data sharing within Meta’s ecosystem does not amount to abuse of dominance and ruled that WhatsApp may share user data for advertisements, subject to compliance with the law.

[WhatsApp LLC v. CCI; Meta Platforms Inc. v. CCI]

The Supreme Court has sought the Union government’s response on a petition demanding a nationwide ban on online gambling and betting platforms allegedly posing as e-sports or social gaming apps.

The petitioner contended that nearly 2,000 such platforms operate under misleading pretences, posing a grave risk to public welfare, particularly the youth.

The Court directed that the plea be tagged with the batch of petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.

[Centre for Accountability Systemic Change (CASC) & Anr. v Union of India & Ors.]

The Supreme Court expressed grave concern over the growing menace of “digital arrest” scams, noting that victims across India, particularly the elderly, have lost over ₹3,000 crore.

Referring to a confidential Union Government report, a Bench led by Justice Surya Kant termed the fraud a “very big challenge” warranting strict judicial intervention.

The Court said it would issue stringent directions to empower investigating agencies. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta confirmed that such scams, often run by cross-border syndicates using forged judicial and police orders, had expanded beyond expectations.

The case arose from a suo motu cognisance of a digital extortion incident in Haryana.

[In Re: Digital Arrest Scam, 2025]

The Bombay High Court rebuked the Assessing Officer of the National Faceless Assessment Centre for relying on three non-existent, AI-generated judicial precedents while issuing a ₹27.91-crore tax demand.

The Division Bench observed that blind reliance on Artificial Intelligence in quasi-judicial proceedings violated natural justice.

The Court held that the officer ignored the taxpayer’s detailed responses and fabricated precedents to justify additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Court remanded the matter, directing the officer to issue a fresh show-cause notice, ensure a personal hearing, and verify all cited authorities before passing a speaking order.

[KMG Wires Private Limited v National Faceless Assessment]

The Supreme Court has listed for hearing on November 4, 2025, a batch of petitions transferred from various High Courts challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.

The petitions, filed by multiple online gaming platforms, contended that the Act imposed a blanket ban on games of skill, violating the right to trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan had earlier consolidated all such petitions to ensure uniform adjudication. The Court held that all pending challenges before different High Courts would be heard together to prevent conflicting rulings.

[Union of India v Head Digital Works Pvt. Ltd. & Anr]