The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology recently notified the establishment of a Fact Check Unit under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to deal with issues regarding spreading of misinformation or misleading information regarding government business either suo motu or through a complaint. Social media intermediaries would now be required to take down information flagged as false or misleading by the Fact Check Unit, failing which the effect of the safe harbor provisions could be taken away. The author believes that such unbridled powers could be detrimental to the fundamental right of freedom to speech and expression of social media intermediaries.

Social media has become a tool for spreading misinformation. The objective of establishing a Fact Check Unit is to stifle misinformation and misleading information which could affect the public interest at large. A query can be submitted to the unit regarding any misinformation or misleading information circulated on social media. Additionally, the Fact Check Unit could take suo motu actions to avoid cases wherein no complaints are raised by the public.

It is necessary that such fact checks must be conducted by an unbiased regulator to ensure that no filters are applied to crucial information. If the Fact Check Unit is established by the Government without any supervisory authority, it could lead to a situation where any information detrimental to the government’s interest, such as criticism of government policy, may be flagged as wrong or misleading information.

The powers of the Fact Check Unit have not been defined. This increases the scope of misuse of such powers, which would hamper the interests of social media intermediaries. In such cases, the social media intermediary could also face unnecessary prosecutions. Any recourse regarding misleading or misinformation or misleading information must be within the scope of reasonable restrictions enshrined under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which is not the case in the present scenario.

Any statutory authority must have a defined scope of work. The Fact Check Unit established by the Government relates to the “government business”. Such government business is to be decided by the Unit itself, which makes its functioning arbitrary in nature.

While the objective to establish the Fact Check Unit is desirable, the Government has not clarified the scope of its functions and powers. Thus, a Fact Check Unit functioning under the government to check information regarding the government business could have an adverse impact on the public interest at large.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

Annual Complaints Report 2023-24 by Advertisement Standard Council of India (ASCI), is a report published in May 2024 by the Indian ad-watchdog ASCI, based on their internal monitoring system and complaints received from the public between April 2023 to March 2024. The Report highlights the trend pertaining to misleading advertisement across various sectors in India.

The Report states that ASCI received more than 10,000 complaints out of which 8,299 were analyzed. The Report flags that 81% of the overall advertisements were making misleading claims and 98% of them required some modifications as per the ASCI Code. ASCI observed that the compliance rate is low in digital ad-space (75%) in contrast to traditional print-media and TV (97%).

The Report observed that 99% of the promotions done by influencers were found to be in violation of the Influencer Guidelines, whereas 91% of the promotions done by celebrities were found to be in violation of the Celebrity Guidelines. The most misleading claims were made regarding ‘personal care’, food & beverage’ and ‘fashion & lifestyle’ products.

The most violative sector is “Healthcare” (19%) where majority of the stakeholders violated Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 which prohibits advertisement of a certain category of drugs for treating certain diseases/ disorders. This is followed by “offshore betting ads” (17%) that are maintained by foreign entities in India and are promoted by prominent Indian celebrities. “Personal care” (13%) continues to be in the top-3 list for the third consecutive year often involving influencer non-disclosure. After the COVID-19 pandemic, the “Ed-tech” sector is also on the rise, exploiting the vulnerabilities of parents and students. “Baby care” for the first time made it to the list of top-10 violators as parents are now becoming more aware about the products to be applied on their wards.

The Report highlights that tracking ads on the digital space is a tedious task as thousands of misleading ads are created every single day. However, ASCI has a vigilant screening team that scrutinizes violations using advanced online monitoring systems like ad-libraries. In addition, ASCI’s digital suo-moto initiative specifically targets misleading claims made on OTT-platforms, green-washing etc. Complaints can be lodged by the public, Industries, Consumer organizations and Govt-bodies by providing basic information via WhatsApp or on ASCI’s website. The average time taken by ASCI to adjudicate a complaint is 15 working days. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) comprising of 40 professionals review complaints weekly and any appeal from CCC is handled by four retired High-Court judges. Owing to the robust mechanism the overall compliance rate has improved.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The issue of making computer programs developed by educational institutions openly accessible for research and academic purposes is a nuanced one and it involves a delicate balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering the progress of technology. While these programs are indeed creations of intellectual labor and deserve protection under copyright laws, there are compelling arguments in favor of making them freely accessible. This author believes that doing so aligns with the principles of knowledge dissemination, fosters innovation, promotes inclusivity in education, and stimulates economic growth as well as global competitiveness.

The essence of academia lies in the dissemination of knowledge and the collective advancement of human understanding. By restricting access to educational programs through stringent copyright protection, we risk impeding the progress of research. Research is inherently a collaborative endeavor, and the ability to share and build upon each other’s work is fundamental to scientific progress. Stringent copyright protection creates barriers to this collaboration, while open access removes these barriers, allowing researchers from around the world to work together more effectively. This collaboration can lead to significant breakthrough inventions at an accelerated pace that might not be possible in a restrictive environment. Countries that embrace open access policies for educational resources are likely to see a boost in their competitive edge in the digital age, as they foster environments conducive to cutting-edge research and development.

Providing open access to computer programs is particularly beneficial for financially disadvantaged researchers. High costs of proprietary software and resources can be prohibitive, limiting access to foundational tools necessary for conducting research. By making these programs freely available, educational institutions can nurture a diverse pool of talent, enabling researchers from all backgrounds to contribute to technological and scientific advancements. This inclusivity is crucial for driving innovation and ensuring that a wide range of perspectives are represented in research. Educational institutions are often funded by public resources, implying a degree of public investment in the development of these programs. As such, there’s a moral imperative to ensure that the fruits of this investment contribute to the greater societal good.

Granting free access to computer programs can maximize their utility, enabling researchers, students, and educators to leverage them for innovative projects. Therefore, educational institutions should provide open access to their computer programs owing to its numerous benefits such as promotion of knowledge dissemination, inclusivity in education, scientific progress, economic growth, and global competitiveness. By embracing open access, educational institutions can uphold their ethical responsibilities and contribute to the collective advancement of human understanding.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

As discussions on copyright ownership of creations through generative AI are still nascent, the potential effect of granting copyright to works generated through AI technology is an issue that requires close attention. While there exist varied views of who can enjoy copyright over generative AI works, the author opines that granting copyright ownership to users will serve as an incentive that encourages investment in the development of AI technology.

The bounds of creativity and originality are re-defined with leaps of development made in generative AI models. The apprehension surrounding incentivizing products of generative AI technology is that granting ownership over products of generative AI may hinder collective enjoyment and cultural development of society. But history has only shown that encouraging technology benefits society at large. Culture has transformed and evolved owing to the Internet providing avenues for new forms of expression and works utilizing generative AI is only a natural extension of the same.

The foreground of the debate is in understanding the function performed by AI technology in creating ‘original’ works. As it stands, a generative AI-platform is a framework designed to assist its users in actualizing creative works in a smart manner. In this framework, the creative thought or a ‘prompt’ originates from the user of AI platforms. It is argued that providing copyright ownership to users would indeed align with the purpose of copyright protection, i.e., to encourage innovation by allowing users to monetize their works and enjoy the economic benefits arising out of it. Furthermore, business models such as paid AI-platforms and services indicate the recognition of mutual economic benefits to users and AI-platforms. This works in common benefit for stakeholders and attracts more users to AI-platforms, thereby benefiting the developers of such platforms.

As laws adapt and untangle technological complexities that require attention, granting copyright protection to users seems to come as a natural solution. AI-generated works are only capable of training data – it is the user who hones the technology to create value for society, such AI-platforms would have no further role to play. Providing copyright ownership assures users the freedom to exploit their content and work within the contours of copyright law. This clarity eliminates potential hesitation among investors, ensuring a conducive environment for investment in AI technology. For that reason, it can be contemplated that copyright ownership of AI generated content to the user would catalyze AI platforms to invest and generate revenue.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) published the draft India Data Accessibility and Use Policy 2022 (“Policy”) on February 21, 2022. To meet its objective of better service delivery for which non-personal data is valuable, the Policy proposes how non-personal data and information (“NPD”) consolidated by the Government of India (“GOI”) should be managed.

The Policy outlines the objective and underlying principles; and defines key terms to enhance access, quality, and use of NPD. The Policy is made applicable to NPD consolidated by the GOI through creation, generation, collection, and/or archival, directly or indirectly through authorized agents including ministries, departments, organizations, agencies, and/or autonomous bodies (“body/bodies”). The State Governments may adopt such provisions and protocols as applicable.

The Policy proposes the establishment of India Data Office (“Office”) to consolidate and streamline the process of data access and sharing between governments and stakeholders. The Policy proposes the establishment of Data Management Units (“Units”) for each body, headed by a Chief Data Officer (“Officer”) with the aid of the Office, and together, ensure this Policy’s implementation. The Policy also proposes the creation of India Data Council (“Council”) comprising of the Office and Units, to define and finalize relevant frameworks and coordinate deliberations between ministries, departments and state governments. The Council will function on a rotational tenure of 2 years.

The Policy provides that the Office will work closely with bodies and states to accelerate access to data held by them and coordinate with stakeholders to provide data for such parties’ use, per Office’s notified protocols. The Policy lays the responsibility of identifying and classifying datasets and maintaining integrated data portals through APIs upon the government’s respective body, with technical and implementation assistance provided by Office. Once approved, datasets will be federated into a single government searchable database, for inter-governmental sharing.

The Policy proposes that each body shall adopt and publish relevant standards for data and metadata and data retention policy. In respect of cross-domain standards, the Office shall finalize the standards applicable to the concerned government bodies.

The Policy provides that a Data Sharing toolkit and Reference Anonymization tools will be made available to bodies to assess and optimally manage risk in any transaction of data sharing and release. The bodies will conduct themselves in compliance with the legal policies, legislations, rules, guidelines, etc, time being in force, and recognized international guidelines. The Policy lays the responsibility of monitoring the policy’s implementation and enforcement on the Office; and also provides for the publication of an implementation manual by MeitY.

The Policy can be accessed here.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP