TechTicker 78: Can brands handle tech reviews?

Some of us at Ikigai Law are big fans of the tech review corner on the internet. So, when a few videos were taken down after legal action by smartphone brands, it immediately caught our attention.

The disputes raise interesting questions. Creators are playing an important role in helping consumers navigate a crowded marketplace of products. But brands have a strong interest in protecting themselves from any reputational damage, that affects their business. And it looks like courts are now becoming the arena to decide this balance between public interest information, free speech and a company’s legitimate economic interests.

That conversation forms the basis of our deep dive this month. Beyond this, we also look at fresh developments around the IT Rules amendments, age-verification proposals, AI liability, and much more.

Anyway, before your next favourite reviewer's video gets taken down or an AI model accidentally breaks the internet — here's everything from the Ticker.

I. Deep-dive

A new actor in the content takedown ecosystem?

India’s content takedown landscape has, until now, been most visibly shaped by government action, through blocking and takedown orders under IT Act. But the last few weeks have highlighted another route through which online content is being challenged. Commercial brands reaching for civil courts to restrict or takedown content that is critical of their products.

The legal machinery is different. The actor is a private company rather than the state, and the cause of action is commercial disparagement or defamation rather than the specific categories of illegal content called out under the IT Rules. Yet they raise familiar questions about who gets to decide what stays online and what comes down.

Companies have legitimate interests in protecting their reputation from inaccurate claims that can spread rapidly online. At the same time, creators and reviewers play an increasingly important role in informing consumer choices and scrutinising products in public. Recent disputes between technology brands and creators have brought these competing interests into sharp focus.

The cases

On April 28, 2026, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order against TechWiser (2.52 million subscribers) and TechBar (5.72 million subscribers), barring them from publishing content that ‘disparaged’ AI+ Smartphones and its founder Madhav Sheth. The order was issued without hearing the creators. The channels found out when the order was already in force.

The videos at issue — “This Indian Phone Is A Marketing Disaster!” (259,000+ views) and “FAKE Indian Company - Needs to STOP” (332,000+ views) — had interrogated the brand’s sovereign Indian credentials, data privacy claims, and software practices. The court reviewed transcripts and found the statements to “border on disparagement,” noting the absence of technical evaluations to support the claims. Based on this, the court held that there is a prima facie case in favour of AI+ and restricted the creators from sharing any content about AI+.

Weeks earlier, Motorola’s Indian arm had also moved in a similar fashion. The suit, filed before the civil court in Bengaluru, named platforms including X, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Threads, Google, and Meta — alongside dozens of individual creators — over hundreds of posts alleging its devices were fire hazards. Rather than filing individual takedown requests, Motorola named the platforms directly as co-defendants, seeking an injunction against existing and future “defamatory” content. A court order followed directing YouTube to block critical reviews from being viewed in India.

These cases are not isolated and are part of an emerging trend. Some like Prateek Waghre have documented a growing list of creators receiving legal notices and takedown orders. SFLC also has a list of emerging takedown orders that users and content creators are facing - a pattern that extends well beyond tech reviewers, reaching nutritionists, lifestyle creators, and ordinary users.

Created by Nirmal

A piracy tool in a defamation suit

When brands sue creators, the legal claim is typically commercial disparagement. This is a civil cause of action requiring proof that a statement is false, made with malice, and has caused demonstrable damage to the brand. This is a high bar, and courts have recognized it.

What matters for the brand is to secure an injunction, a temporary restraint as quickly as possible to stop the content from circulating. Such relief can be important for brands in preventing the continued circulation of content they believe is false or damaging to their reputation and business interests. Typically, in such cases, the courts will hear both parties.

In the case AI+ and Motorola cases, the creators did not have an opportunity to present their case before the court. The order was passed, and their content had to be taken down.

A notable feature of both orders is the inclusion of a John Doe clause — in Indian jurisprudence, an Ashok Kumar order. This mechanism was built for piracy cases, where the infringers are genuinely anonymous and unknowable in advance. It allows courts to restrain unnamed future defendants who might commit the same wrong i.e. piracy.

Applied to defamation, the consequences are different. The AI+ order does not just restrain TechWiser and TechBar — it extends to anyone who publishes similar criticism in the future, without those people having been heard by any court. Some tech creators from the Indian ecosystem have noted how this can create a chilling effect on creators. The entire ecosystem could be discouraged from sharing critical reviews, because any critical content of a brand could carry legal exposure.

What have the courts said in the past

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in San Nutrition v. Arpit Mangal is worth noting as a counterpoint. Four influencers who had posted criticism of a protein supplement brand successfully defeated an injunction application. They were backed by independent laboratory reports showing protein content far below advertised claims. The court applied the Bonnard principle — that pre-trial speech restraints should only be granted sparingly, where the defendant's defense is obviously bound to fail. It held that truth and fair comment were available defenses.

In this specific case, the court noted that any interim injunction would result in restricting the freedom of speech and expression of the creators, and deprive the right of the public at large to receive information on matters of health.

The tension for the creator economy

These cases sit at a genuine tension. Brands have legitimate interests in protecting their reputation from false or unsubstantiated claims. A damaging viral video can cause real commercial harm, and the legal standard for commercial disparagement exists precisely to address that. Creators who make claims without sufficient factual backing carry real risk of causing such harm.

India has hundreds and millions of social media users, over 2 million active creators, and an ecosystem that influenced an estimated $350–400 billion in consumer spending in 2024. This is projected to reach $3.93 billion in direct revenues by 2030. As creators become more influential, so too does the impact of their reviews, recommendations, and criticism. Equally, consumers benefit from an ecosystem where creators can independently test, review, and critique products without undue fear of legal consequences.

Both sides have recourse to courts, but the terms of that recourse are not equal. Orders like the one in AI+ or Motorola highlight how creators were not given a chance to be heard, and content gets taken down immediately. Large companies often have dedicated legal teams and resources, while independent creators may face substantial financial and operational burdens in responding to legal proceedings. As our report, Creators First: Enabling India’s Content Creator Economy identifies, regulatory uncertainty and the absence of legal literacy are already structural challenges faced by creators.

The question these cases raise is not whether brands should have legal remedies. They should. The issue is whether orders, particularly when extended by John Doe clauses to future creators who have not yet been heard, are being used in a way that strikes the right balance between protecting reputation and preserving space for independent reviews, criticism, and consumer awareness.

This is an emerging litigation trend, and it is too early to draw broad conclusions. But these cases hint at a future where product reviews, creator speech, and brand reputation are increasingly being negotiated in courtrooms – that could have lasting impact on the creator ecosystem.

II. Connecting the dots

IT Rules amendments: pushback

It has been a month since the consultation period for the latest draft IT Rules amendments ended. As per reporting, the amendments were due to be notified by end of May. The government received 4000+ submissions, but reportedly the controversial provisions in the draft amendments will remain.

Ikigai Law has also made submissions on the draft IT Rules. Our comments address four pertinent issues that warrant serious consideration: (i) the potential legal effect improperly given to non-statutory executive instruments under the proposed Rule 3(4); (ii) the ongoing judicial stay on the enabling provisions of Part III of the IT Rules; (iii) misapplication of broadcast-era scarcity regulations to the internet; and (iv) the absence of a rational basis for conflating institutional journalists with independent creators. You can read our analysis here.

There is pushback against the draft across both industry and civil society. NASSCOM, IAMAI, and the Broadband India Forum have opposed proposed Rule 3(4), which would make safe harbour protection contingent on compliance with government advisories, directions, and codes of practice that have not gone through parliamentary scrutiny.

Industry bodies argue this could fundamentally alter the intermediary liability framework by shifting platforms from a notice-and-takedown model toward continuous compliance with evolving executive directions. Civil society organizations like SFLC, IFF and Amnesty International have urged the IT Ministry to withdraw the amendments entirely, warning that they significantly expand government control over online speech. The draft IT Rules, when notified, will build on the government’s evolving compliance architecture.

States continue experimenting with social media age restrictions

State-level efforts to regulate children's access to social media continue to gather momentum. Goa is examining how restrictions on Facebook and Instagram use for under-16 users could operate in practice, including possible age-verification mechanisms. Andhra Pradesh IT Minister Nara Lokesh has meanwhile indicated that discussions are underway with Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw on creating age-verification infrastructure for social media platforms. Together, these developments show an emerging trend: rather than a single national framework, India is seeing a growing patchwork of state-led experiments, verification systems, and enforcement models. The constitutional and practical implications of a fragmented regulation around social media access will be worth looking out for.

III. From the courtroom to your inbox

Calcutta High Court questions whether ChatGPT qualifies as an intermediary

The Calcutta High Court, while hearing a dispute between IndiaMART and OpenAI, observed prima facie that ChatGPT may not fall within the definition of an “intermediary” under Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act. The court noted that unlike traditional intermediaries that merely host or transmit third-party content, generative AI systems actively create and synthesize responses potentially placing them outside the safe harbour framework under Section 79. The observations emerged in proceedings concerning allegations of selective exclusion and platform-generated outputs, where the court examined whether AI-generated responses could be treated as neutral dissemination of third-party information. Importantly, the court clarified that the issue remains unresolved and would require detailed technical and expert examination at final hearing. The matter raises larger questions about how Indian intermediary liability law applies to generative AI systems, especially as the current approach is to regulate AI platforms through the existing IT Act framework.

Copyright wars between media giants escalate

⁠The Delhi High Court referred ZEE Entertainment’s music copyright suit against JioStar to mediation, while restraining JioStar from using ZEE’s licensed musical works during the process. ZEE’s suit seeks nearly $3 million in damages for the alleged unauthorised use of its music catalogue more than 50 times after licensing agreements expired. Days later, JioStar initiated separate proceedings before the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, alleging that ZEE broadcasted several Bollywood films without permission. ZEE denied wrongdoing, claiming some broadcasts were inadvertent and that permissions had been obtained in certain cases. Interestingly, the parties are already engaged in a separate $1 billion arbitration in London over a failed cricket rights deal from 2024. The widening dispute reflects intensifying competition over licensing, broadcasting, and content ownership in India’s media and entertainment sector.

Delhi High Court tells Apple to cooperate with CCI's App Store probe

The Delhi High Court has rejected Apple's bid to pause antitrust proceedings by the Competition Commission of India, directing the company to fully cooperate with its investigation into App Store practices. The CCI's probe, stemming from an 2021 complaint over Apple's mandatory in-app payment system and 30% developer commission, concluded in 2024 that Apple had abused its dominant position in the iPhone apps market. Investigators have been seeking Apple's financial data to calculate potential penalties, but Apple refused, arguing it is separately challenging the legality of India's penalty framework and the CCI should wait. The court rejected that logic, though it did offer a partial concession: the CCI cannot issue a final order before July 15, buying Apple some time. The outcome matters beyond the immediate case — how CCI views penalties, will shape the way global companies engage with India as well.

Supreme Court issues notice in AAP's challenge to social media account suspensions

The Aam Aadmi Party approached the Supreme Court challenging the suspension of its Gujarat unit's Instagram handle "@aapgujarat" and its Facebook page. Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and tagged the petition with other matters raising similar issues, including Software Freedom Law Centre, India v. Union of India. AAP has specifically questioned the use of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to affect the suspension of the accounts (a provision that ordinarily allows government authorities to direct intermediaries to remove or disable access to unlawful content), without a formal blocking order under Section 69A. The matter will be heard alongside other pending petitions on the same legal question.

IV. Global Tech Stories

Kids online safety continues its journey in the USA

In March 2026, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable for harms suffered by a minor who began using Instagram at age nine — one of the first verdicts to treat platform design, rather than content, as the source of liability. Features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications were framed as product defects, reviving momentum behind the stalled Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) in the US. This bill proposes to impose a “duty of care” obligation on platforms, requiring them to implement design features that prevent harm to children online.

The bill, passed by the Senate in 2024 – failed to be enacted and was reworked in 2025. But the bill remains stalled in the House amid opposition from 40 state attorneys general to federal pre-emption provisions.

At the same time, states across the US continue experimenting with their own approaches of social media restrictions. Since 2023, at least 28 states have proposed or enacted laws introducing age-verification requirements, parental consent mandates, curfews, or restrictions on minors accessing social media platforms. Several of these measures, however, have already run into constitutional challenges, with courts repeatedly questioning whether broad restrictions on minors’ online access violate First Amendment protections. The US remains deeply divided on how far governments can go in regulating children's online experiences, but something will be coming soon to improve child safety.

Anthropic's Mythos and the race to secure the internet before it breaks it

Anthropic’s unreleased AI model, Claude Mythos Preview, was launched in April 2026 as the core of Project Glasswing, a restricted programme giving select organisations access to the model for defensive cybersecurity work. Anthropic said internal testing showed Mythos could identify vulnerabilities and generate working exploits at unusually high rates, raising fears that public release could outpace defenders’ ability to patch systems. Initial partners included Amazon Web Services, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Cisco, CrowdStrike, and JPMorganChase.

The ripple effects are now reaching governments and companies worldwide. Security agencies, financial regulators, and critical infrastructure operators are increasingly treating frontier cyber-capable AI as a national resilience issue rather than merely another software tool. In India, Tata Consultancy Services and Infosys are among the companies testing but many are yet to access it.

Mythos may become one of the first real-world examples forcing governments to think about frontier AI access controls in practical terms. Unlike debates around misinformation or copyright, the risks here are immediate, infrastructural, and potentially systemic. It’s forcing companies to adapt quickly before the internet’s defensive assumptions about cybersecurity begin to change due to frontier AI.

V. Reading reccos

The Pope’s encyclical letter Magnifica Humanitas , on artificial intelligence is an engaging read to understand his critique of AI, and how it shapes our lives.
This op-ed by Theo Baker on the New York Times explored the experience of studying with AI tools over the past 3 years – and its effect on the culture of education.
Ben Thompson writes about Amazon’s ability to survive and endure as a strong business in other avenues despite the onslaught of AI-announcements from other competitors.

VI. Shoutouts

In May, Ikigai Law served as knowledge partner to Startup Policy Forum for their Baithak series with IFSCA and the Department of Economic Affairs. Over two days, we engaged with Dr. Dipesh Shah (Director, Development) and Mr. Supriyo Bhattacharjee (Chief General Manager, Banking) from IFSCA, and Ms. Aparna Sinha (Adviser) from DEA.
SPF also released the 100DesiDeepTechs, spotlighting founders building India's next generation of deeptech companies. Ikigai Law has been working with SPF on the forthcoming DeepTech Policy Report as knowledge partners, featuring inputs from founders and stakeholders across the deeptech spectrum on where policy is falling short, and what needs to change.
Astha Srivastava, Nirmal Bhansali, and Akshat Tenneti attended MediaNama's roundtable on age verification for children on social media.
We also hosted a hands-on workshop at our Delhi office on AI and in-house legal workflows — bringing together over 30 in-house counsels from retail, education, manufacturing, automotive, payments, and media. The workshop highlighted the growing conversations and shift in workflows around AI taking place at the intersection of law, technology, and business strategy.