Esya Dispatch | 18 - 28 May 2026 | Dainik Bhaskar & Ors file CCI complaint against Google over revenue sharing & Airtel’s postpaid priority plan faces TRAI review

Welcome to The Esya Dispatch, a weekly snapshot of the policy debates shaping India’s digital economy. Each edition brings together key developments in technology policy, from platform governance and AI regulation to data protection and competition — along with the Esya Centre’s perspective on what they mean for innovation, businesses, and users.

Here’s a quick recap of two key tech policy developments from the past week:

Dainik Bhaskar and other outlets file CCI complaint against Google over revenue sharing

Recently, the Promoter and Director of Dainik Bhaskar said that the publisher, along with other media organizations, has filed a case against Google before the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”), with regard to revenue sharing between platforms and news publishers. Previously, bodies like the Indian Newspaper Society, the Digital News Publishers’ Association and the News Broadcasters and Digital Association had approached the CCI, alleging that Google abused its dominant position in the search engine market by free-riding on their news content and failing to compensate them fairly for their content. Their complaint also flagged concerns regarding the inclusion of “snippets” on Google search, noting that it adversely affects their revenue. In 2022, the CCI clubbed all these complaints together. These concerns have seemingly intensified following the rollout of Google’s AI Overview feature, which provides AI-generated summaries of news articles directly on the search results page.

ESYA’S TAKE: News publishers’ arguments in these cases rest on the premise that digital platforms are free-riding on their content. However, the empirical basis for this argument is weak, because news publishers often benefit from the referral traffic that accrues to them from digital platforms. For example, in 2023, Brazil’s competition regulator published a report which found that Google’s news snippets, which display headlines and short extracts of news articles on the search results page itself, increased traffic to news media websites. This report also found insufficient evidence of snippets discouraging users from clicking through to news websites. This casts doubt on the broader claim that digital platforms systematically free-ride on news publishers’ content.

Airtel’s postpaid priority plan faces TRAI review following net neutrality concerns

Airtel recently rolled out a priority network service for postpaid users, promising them faster and more stable connections. This service relies on 5G network slicing, which divides the network into several vertical “slices” that cater to varying customer needs. While carriers like Jio have relied on network slicing for fixed wireless access, Airtel’s plan is the first to use it for individual mobile users.

Airtel’s plan appears to have raised concerns about a violation of net neutrality norms, with both the Centre and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) examining whether the plan deteriorates the quality of service for Airtel’s prepaid users. Recently, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT sought responses from the Department of Telecommunications (“DoT”) and the TRAI on whether 5G network slicing could compromise the net neutrality of prepaid mobile users and asked them to review its impact across countries like Singapore and the UK within 25 days.

ESYA’S TAKE: The TRAI has long maintained that net neutrality principles are technology neutral and so apply to 5G networks in the same way as they apply to 2G, 3G and 4G technologies. However, the controversy regarding Airtel’s postpaid plan highlights that this may prove challenging in practice. Net neutrality norms were formulated at a time when applications were distinct from and simply travelled over a network. Thus, they do not account for the technological realities of 5G network slicing, which envisions applications interacting with networks that are configured to meet their specific needs.
For example, some stakeholders argue that Airtel’s priority postpaid plan does not violate net neutrality in India, because it does not prioritise speed for specific apps, or impose differential pricing for apps. However, others are concerned that since spectrum remains limited, prepaid subscribers may nonetheless experience slower services during periods of congestion. Additionally, some experts contend that net neutrality principles are limited to internet access services and do not extend to 5G network slicing, which is a “specialized service” optimized for specific users that is exempt from non-discrimination obligations. Conversely, some scholars studying similar exemptions in other countries question whether they can apply to network slicing, stating that it provides advanced services to a variety of use cases, rather than being optimized for specific use cases. This indicates that the application of net neutrality to 5G network slicing may not be straightforward.

Esya Dispatch | 10 - 17 May 2026 | EU Digital Networks Act’s conciliation mechanism revives NUF concerns & DigiYatra expands to international travel

Welcome to The Esya Dispatch, a weekly snapshot of the policy debates shaping India’s digital economy. Each edition brings together key developments in technology policy, from platform governance and AI regulation to data protection and competition — along with the Esya Centre’s perspective on what they mean for innovation, businesses, and users.

Here’s a quick recap of two key tech policy developments from the past week:

EU Digital Networks Act’s voluntary conciliation mechanism resurrects concerns regarding network usage fees

The European Commission has adopted the proposal for the Digital Networks Act (“DNA”), which aims to simplify, modify and harmonize EU rules on connectivity networks. Broadly, it enables network and service providers to offer EU-wide services while registering only in one country, mandates national transition plans from copper to high-fibre networks, introduces an EU Preparedness Plan for disaster-resilient digital infrastructure, and reduces businesses’ administrative and reporting burdens. 

One contentious proposals under the DNA is a “voluntary conciliation” mechanism for disputes related to network costs. Under the DNA, national regulatory authorities may facilitate a meeting between network operators and content providers regarding “technical and commercial arrangements” related to the provision of their services. After consulting the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (“BEREC”) for its opinion, the national regulatory authority concerned may provide a written account of the possible next steps, any elements of agreement between the two entities and suggested options for effective cooperation. Further, the European Commission will review the functioning of this conciliation mechanism three years from the date of the DNA’s enforcement. 

ESYA’S TAKE: The DNA’s voluntary conciliation mechanism may indirectly subject content and application providers to a network usage fee (“NUF”). Although the conciliation mechanism is not binding, telecom operators may leverage it to file repeated conciliation requests and portray any content or application provider’s (CAP’s) refusal to pay an NUF as evidence of their non-cooperation. This raises two concerns. Firstly, there is no principled justification for imposing an NUF on CAPs. CAPs and telecom operators share a symbiotic relationship: CAPs drive data demand and telecom revenues, while bundled CAP subscriptions enhance telcos’ customer retention and revenues. CAPs have also made significant investments in network infrastructure, improving service quality and reducing costs for both telecom operators and consumers. 

Secondly, imposing an NUF will harm both consumer welfare and competition. According to our 2026 study, 68 percent of experts surveyed believed that an NUF would decrease consumer welfare. Meanwhile, 74 percent of experts stated that an NUF would lead to consumers paying a similar price for internet services as before, while 21 percent noted that prices may increase. This suggests that users would bear the increased costs of an NUF, while telecom operators are unlikely to pass on any surpluses through lower prices. Further, 74 percent of experts were apprehensive that an NUF could favour established CAPs over start-ups and 79 percent predicted a moderate to extreme decline in efficiency in the CAP industry. Thus, an NUF is unlikely to generate meaningful competitive or efficiency benefits, while posing significant risks to consumer welfare.

DigiYatra pivots towards expansion to international travel

DigiYatra, India’s facial recognition-based airport entry system, is pivoting toward international expansion. Currently operational at 24 domestic airports, the system allows passengers to enroll via Aadhaar-linked biometrics, effectively turning their face into a boarding pass. The DigiYatra Foundation (DYF) is now transitioning to support electronic passports, a move designed to accommodate both Indian citizens and foreign nationals. Trials have already been conducted on the Bengaluru-Doha route. The DYF has also signed a pilot agreement with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which sets global passport standards.

ESYA’S TAKE: The DigiYatra app is reportedly audited for compliance with data protection norms. However, its expansion to international travel may still conflict with global privacy laws. For instance, the EU’s GDPR does not permit processing of biometric data, outside of a few exceptions. Further, the GDPR generally permits transfers of personal data to third countries only where they ensure an “adequate level of protection”, and India currently does not have adequacy status with the EU. In fact, in 2024, the European Data Protection Supervisor reportedly refused a data transfer request to India, indicating that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not meet the EU’s adequacy threshold. In this context, it remains unclear how DigiYatra’s international expansion can be operationalised.

 Additionally, while DigiYatra claims alignment with international digital identity standards such as Europe’s Digital Identity Wallet framework, even that framework has been criticized by the  European Data Protection Supervisor for potentially compromising the integrity of personal data, risking its over-disclosure to relying parties and enabling user profiling, in violation of the GDPR’s principles of data minimization and purpose limitation.

It is also unclear whether DigiYatra is truly effective in making domestic or international air travel more efficient and easier for passengers. Earlier this year, passengers at the Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru airports faced issues due to technical glitches with the DigiYatra app, which reportedly caused confusion and delays. Reports also indicate that a majority of consumers in India use DigiYatra not due to convenience, but under compulsion by ground staff. Further, since DigiYatra’s pilot expansion excluded immigration processes, which require separate regulatory approvals and bilateral and agreements between countries, its ultimate utility in saving time for international travel is questionable.

Esya Dispatch | 16-24 April 2026 | MeitY constitutes AI Governance & Economic Group and notifies online gaming rules

Welcome to The Esya Dispatch, a weekly snapshot of the policy debates shaping India’s digital economy. Each edition brings together key developments in technology policy, from platform governance and AI regulation to data protection and competition — along with the Esya Centre’s perspective on what they mean for innovation, businesses, and users.

Here’s a quick recap of two key tech policy developments from the past week:

MeitY constitutes AI Governance and Economic Group

Recently, the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) constituted the AI Governance and Economic Group (AIGEG), a high-level inter-ministerial body responsible for overseeing AI governance in India. It will be chaired by the Minister for Electronics and IT and include the MeitY Secretary, the Principal Scientific Advisor, the Chief Economic Advisor, the CEO of NITI Aayog, the Secretaries of the Department of Telecommunications, the Department of Economic Affairs, and the Department of Science and Technology, and a representative from the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). Broadly, the AIGEG’s functions include developing India’s AI governance strategy, coordinating policy across ministries and sectoral regulators, identifying regulatory gaps across existing laws, and working with industry to chart a roadmap for AI deployment.

ESYA’S TAKE: The constitution of the AIGEG stems from MeitY’s IndiaAI Governance Guidelines, which had proposed creating an AI Governance Group to develop and oversee India’s AI governance strategy. However, the AIGEG’s Terms of Reference (ToR) goes beyond this aim by seemingly sanctioning a licensing regime for AI models in India. For example, the ToR empowers the AIGEG to classify AI use cases into three categories – “deploy”, “pilot” and “defer” – based on data availability, skills, legal frameworks and capacity for labour adjustment. This language suggests that AI developers will need to obtain the AIGEG’s approval before rolling out AI models for different use cases. Additionally, the parameters to classify AI use cases (e.g. data availability, skills) are subjective and evolve continuously over time. This introduces regulatory uncertainty for AI start-ups and businesses, and risks throttling AI innovation in India.

This approach also risks replicating concerns observed in MeitY’s previous attempts to regulate AI. For example, MeitY’s first AI advisory issued in March 2024 also proposed obtaining government permission before deploying certain “untested” or “unreliable” AI models. However, this advisory was subsequently rolled back following concerns about its impact on AI development and deployment in India.

MeitY notifies online gaming rules, in effect from May 1

On April 22, MeitY notified the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026 (“PROG Rules”). Broadly, the PROG Rules classify permissible online games into online social games and e-sports and establish the Online Gaming Authority of India (“OGAI”), which is empowered to issue guidelines and codes of practice regulating online games and oversee the sector. Additionally, the PROG Rules specifies how the OGAI can determine the nature of any online game, as well as the mechanism to certify and register such games. Further, it lays down a grievance redressal mechanism for online games and clarifies the procedure to impose penalties for any contravention of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (“PROGA”). The PROG Rules will be implemented from May 1, 2026.

ESYA’S TAKE: The PROG Rules 2026 retain many problematic provisions under the Draft Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2025 (“2025 Draft”). For example, the 2025 Draft defined an “online game service provider” as any person that offers, operates, or “makes available” an online game – is wide enough to subsume entities that merely distributed online games, such as app stores or online game storefronts. This raised concerns about an overbroad application of the 2025 Draft, because such entities would then have to comply with obligations related to the registration of online games or the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism, among others. Despite these concerns, the PROG Rules, 2026 retain the same definition of an “online game service provider”. Additionally, under the 2025 Draft, appeals from the decisions of the OGAI, which is chaired by the Additional Secretary, MeitY lay with the Appellate Authority, which was the MeitY Secretary – raising concerns regarding conflicts of interest and independence in regulatory decision-making. However, the PROG Rules, 2026 retain these provisions as well.

The PROG Rules, 2026 also introduce new requirements that may increase uncertainty for industry stakeholders. For example, the PROG Rules, 2026 have substantially expanded the scope of the OGAI’s powers by empowering it to issue guidelines and codes of practice regarding “standards of fair play” – a term which is not defined under the PROGA or the PROG Rules, 2026. Additionally, under the 2026 framework, the central government may mandate registration for certain online social games based on factors such as the risk of harm to users, the detrimental impact on the public due to the online game, and the scale of user participation in the online game. However, terms like “harm” or “detrimental impact” are rather subjective and not defined under the PROGA or the PROG Rules 2026.

In places, the PROG Rules also create potential overlaps with existing regulatory frameworks. For example, the PROG Rules, 2026 allow the OGAI to issue guidelines regarding cybersecurity, which already falls under the purview of bodies like CERT-In, as well as the retention of traffic data or metadata, which is already regulated under India’s data protection law. Thus, the PROG Rules may contribute to regulatory duplication and interpretive ambiguity, while retaining structural concerns from the 2025 Draft.

Esya Dispatch | 01-15 April 2026 | TRAI aims to regulate free ad-supported streaming TV apps and MeitY meets stakeholders regarding draft amendments to IT Rules

Welcome to The Esya Dispatch, a weekly snapshot of the policy debates shaping India’s digital economy. Each edition brings together key developments in technology policy, from platform governance and AI regulation to data protection and competition — along with the Esya Centre’s perspective on what they mean for innovation, businesses, and users.

Here’s a quick recap of two key tech policy developments from the past week:

The TRAI aims to regulate free ad-supported streaming TV apps

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has released a consultation paper on regulating Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) services –  which includes free ad-supported streaming TV services like Samsung TV Plus. Based on a reference from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the CP notes that while such services offer linear, pre-scheduled content similar to Distribution Platform Operators (DPOs), they are not subject to comparable regulatory obligations and may potentially fall afoul of MIB’s Policy Guidelines for Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines for Television Channels as well as TRAI regulations. It adds that content on FAST services is offered without regulatory oversight, raising concerns around content regulation, compliance, accountability and consumer protection.

While wider issues related to OTT services are beyond its scope, the CP highlights that OTT platforms also offer linear television programmes either as a standalone service or bundled with on-demand content. It adds that since the pricing of individual channels is subsumed within such platforms’ subscription fees, it is difficult to know the effective price they charge for such content. TRAI is accepting written comments on the consultation paper until May 6, 2026.

ESYA’S TAKE: This consultation paper touches on issues that lie beyond the TRAI’s jurisdiction. To begin with, the Telecommunications Act 2023 does not empower TRAI to regulate online services like ALTDs or wider OTT services. Illustratively, the Minister for Electronics and IT has previously clarified that the definition of “telecommunications” under this Act does not apply to OTT players or applications. Additionally, unlike the Telecommunications Bill 2022, the 2023 Act does not contain any explicit reference to OTT services. This shows that policymakers intended to exclude such services from its ambit.

Additionally, content regulation does not fall within the TRAI’s ambit. Under Indian telecommunications law and policy, content and carriage have always been regulated separately, with MIB overseeing the former and the TRAI only looking into the latter. This is because regulating content and carriage requires completely different skillsets – while the former requires considering the impact of content on societal sensibilities, the latter entails ensuring the optimal usage of scarce spectrum through quality of service, tariff and interconnection regulations. This fact has also been acknowledged by the MIB in its response to TRAI dated 04.10.2022. Moreover, although the consultation paper suggests that on-demand content offered by FAST services is unregulated, it is, in fact, subject to various laws – such as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Part III of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Lastly, while the consultation paper voices concern regarding the impact of FAST services on DPOs, its own figures show that cable and DTH remain the predominant mode of consuming TV content in India. An Esya Survey of 2,000 consumers shows that 87 percent of households engage with TV programmes and prefer to maintain their subscription even in the presence of alternative digital platforms. Thus, ALTDs will likely serve as a complement to DPOs, not a competitive threat. More broadly, however, competition from newer technologies is not a market failure, and thus, it is not a regulator’s place to be stepping in on such matters. If the regulator wishes to enhance the competitiveness of DPOs it should consider deregulating the broadcasting sector, instead of imposing existing rules on new technologies where they are neither warranted nor within its jurisdiction.

MeitY moves to regulate online user-posted news

The Ministry of Electronics and IT recently met stakeholders from industry and civil society to discuss draft amendments to the IT Rules, 2021. One key aspect discussed in the industry meeting was the possibility of intermediaries being required to furnish information about content creators, and being treated as directly liable for user content. Stakeholders also flagged concerns regarding the IT Rules’ broad definition of news and current affairs content, cautioning that it could lead to over-enforcement of the proposed framework. Further,  provisions that could make advisories legally enforceable prompted concern from industry and civil society stakeholders alike, with participants highlighting their non-binding nature and raising concerns regarding their unpredictability. MeitY indicated that it would address this issue by consolidating past advisories under a master circular and issuing them as “guidelines” under Section 79(2)(c) of the IT Act, 2000.

Since this meeting, MeitY has also stated that it will expand the scope of content blocking hearings to include individual users and social media platforms. Currently, the provisions only allow news publishers to participate in these hearings. It has also extended the timeline to respond to the draft amendments to April 29, 2026.

ESYA’S TAKE: The meeting focused on the impact of Rule 3(4), which could make government advisories legally enforceable. Stakeholders also questioned the legality of consolidating past advisories as “guidelines” under Section 79(2)(c) of the IT Act, and raised concerns about user-generated news content being brought under Part III of the IT Rules.

However, something that received less attention is the expansion of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC’s) powers through proposed changes to Rule 14. Currently, the IDC can review complaints related to a violation of the Code of Ethics that have escalated through the grievance redressal mechanism, or that have been directly referred to it by MIB. However, the draft amendments empower the IDC to hear “matters”. This is a wider term than complaints and allows the IDC to recommend action against online content (e.g. content blocking) even if it does not contravene the Code of Ethics. In this way, the proposed changes to Rule 14 transform the IDC into an executive authority with vast powers to oversee online content.

The legality of this move is also questionable because Rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the IT Rules, which establish the Code of Ethics and the mechanism underpinning the IDC, have been stayed by various High Courts.

Esya Dispatch | 22-28 March 2026 | NHRC Issues Notices Over Alleged DPDP Act Violations and MeitY Moves to Regulate Online User-Posted News

Welcome to The Esya Dispatch, a weekly snapshot of the policy debates shaping India’s digital economy. Each edition brings together key developments in technology policy, from platform governance and AI regulation to data protection and competition — along with the Esya Centre’s perspective on what they mean for innovation, businesses, and users.

Here’s a quick recap of two key tech policy developments from the past week:

NHRC issues notices over alleged DPDP Act violations by AI, social media, edtech platforms

The National Human Rights Commission has initiated action against certain companies alleged to have violated provisions under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, based on a report by the think tank ASIA. The ASIA report claims that services like Meta Platforms, Khan Academy, Gemini and Perplexity AI are not compliant with the Act’s requirements related to data tracking, server security and grievance redressal mechanisms. The Commission stated that this raises serious concerns for children’s online safety and directed the entities to submit a compliance report within 15 days.

ESYA’S TAKE: The Asia report, on which the NHRC’s complaint is based, does not consider legal or technical reality. For one, it checks compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act even though this law is not fully in force. Additionally, there seems to be no justification for choosing the platforms evaluated aside from reach. This metric does not make sense for platforms like ChatGPT or Claude, because users cannot reach out to one another on them. The platforms identified also have no unifying features when it comes to child safety, which renders any comparison flawed.  Many of the platforms evaluated are also educational platforms, which are exempt from certain requirements under the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.

More broadly, the NHRC’s decision to act as the de facto enforcer of a law that is not in place is concerning and sends a bad message to investors about how uncertain and unpredictable the Indian regulatory environment is, particularly for tech.

MeitY moves to regulate online user-posted news

The Ministry of Electronics and IT has proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 to give greater legal weight to government-issued advisories and SOPs, and expand government oversight over user-generated online news content. Broadly, the proposed amendments mandate that platforms comply with government advisories as part of their due diligence obligations, and any failure to do so could result in them losing safe harbour under the Information Technology Act. They also enable the inter-departmental committee under the IT Rules, which comprises bodies like the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, to block user-generated news and current affairs content, and further empower this committee to examine not just escalated user complaints, but also matters referred directly to it by the government.

ESYA’S TAKE: The proposed amendments raise considerable economic concerns. For one, they envision an “advisory governance” model, where the government regulates digital services by rapidly issuing advisories in response to a specific concern or incident. While this helps with agility in governance, it also introduces significant regulatory uncertainty for businesses. This is because unlike laws and rules, advisories typically lack procedural safeguards such as prior consultation with stakeholders, a defined scope, and predictable timelines. Thus, businesses may find it difficult to anticipate regulatory changes, assess compliance obligations, and plan their investments.

The impact of this regulatory uncertainty will likely extend well beyond India’s digital markets, which are deeply interlinked with its physical economy. For example, traditional businesses that rely on digital platforms for market signaling or customer acquisition may face higher transaction costs due to the proposed amendments, which could lead them to reduce investment or outputs. Smaller firms may be forced to exit the market altogether, as they may not be able to accurately estimate regulatory risk. Thus, the ad-hoc and uncertain framework under the proposed amendments presents a systemic economic risk, which needs to be factored in by policymakers.

Esya Dispatch | 15-21 March 2026 | Blocking Orders and Competition in the AI value chain.

Welcome to The Esya Dispatch, a weekly snapshot of the policy debates shaping India’s digital economy. Each edition brings together key developments in technology policy, from platform governance and AI regulation to data protection and competition —along with the Esya Centre’s perspective on what they mean for innovation, businesses, and users.

Here’s a quick recap of two key tech policy developments from the past week:

Centre looks to empower more ministries to block social media content

The Centre may expand the scope of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to allow bodies like the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of External Affairs, and the Ministry of Defence to issue blocking orders to social media platforms. Currently, only the Ministry of Electronics and IT can block online content under this provision. Senior government officials said that the move is necessary to combat AI-generated misinformation online. Notably, the Centre may extend blocking powers to other ministries by issuing a gazette notification, instead of amending the IT Act or its associated rules.

Esya’s take: This move ostensibly aims to speed up the removal of AI-generated misinformation by extending blocking powers to multiple ministries, but may not be constitutional.  In the past, a provision in the IT Rules had similarly proposed taking down content flagged as misinformation by a govt-appointed fact-check unit. However, the Bombay High Court struck down this provision for violating the right to free speech. It noted that the government cannot be the arbiter of truth and the right to free speech does not encompass the right to the truth – because if this was the case, all fiction would be illegal.

Recent amendments to the IT Rules have also reduced content takedown timelines to 2-3 hours in some instances. Since this move could also lead to a surge of requests from multiple ministries, platforms may struggle to process them efficiently, creating confusion.

CCI Chairperson: Ready to act against anti-competitive conduct in AI value chain

The Chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Ravneet Kaur recently said that the regulator is ready to act against anti-competitive conduct in the AI value chain. She flagged concerns regarding algorithmic collusion, targeted price discrimination, self-preferencing and opaqueness in AI systems, noting that these could lead to concentration in AI markets. She added that the regulator has issued a guidance note advising businesses on how to conduct a self-audit of AI systems, to prevent any anti-competitive outcomes from the development and deployment of AI applications.

Esya’s take: A few months ago, the CCI released its market study on AI and competition, which identified algorithmic collusion, targeted pricing and reduced transparency as key competitive concerns. However, such conduct is not new or unique to AI markets – for example, price discrimination is a common practice in sectors like transportation and hospitality. Additionally, since research on issues like AI-driven algorithmic collusion is still at a nascent stage, it is premature to predict the likelihood of its occurrence. Our survey of 50 Indian companies also found that 54 percent of respondents regularly multi-home across both open-source and proprietary AI models, which shows that the Indian market is not concentrated around a handful of frontier models. Thus, the CCI’s concerns appear overstated and rest on uncertain presumptions.

Esya Dispatch | 8-14 March 2026 | Bots, Deepfakes and Social Media Bans

Welcome to The Esya Dispatch, a weekly snapshot of the policy debates shaping India’s digital economy. Each edition brings together key developments in technology policy, from platform governance and AI regulation to data protection and competition —along with the Esya Centre’s perspective on what they mean for innovation, businesses, and users.

Here’s a quick recap of two key tech policy developments from the past week:

One-fifth Australian children still use TikTok, Snapchat despite social media ban 

A study found that a fifth of teenagers below 16 continue to use social media in Australia, despite the country having enacted a social media ban for children below this age. Since the ban took effect, the number of users aged 13-15 using Snapchat reduced by only 13.8 percentage points, while those using TikTok and YouTube reduced by just 5.7 and 1 percentage points respectively. However, even these meagre dips in usage are now beginning to recover. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has stated that it is actively engaging with platforms and their age-assurance providers regarding the presence of under-16 users on social media.

The findings from Australia come as states like Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh consider banning social media for younger users, and the central government reportedly explores graded restrictions for children. Our survey suggests that children will likely find ways around such rules.

ESYA’S TAKE:  Banning social media may not be an effective way to keep children safe online. Notably, the Esya Centre’s own survey of 1,000 Indian children aged 10–15 shows why a ban is unlikely to work. For one, many children are more tech-savvy than policymakers assume—69% said they were comfortable changing settings on their social media accounts. We also found that children may also easily bypass age-gating mechanisms, with 71% accessing social media through a family member’s account. At the same time, bans could cut children off from positive online spaces: 55% of respondents said they had meaningful interactions with strangers online.

MeitY meets industry stakeholders regarding bot amplification, deepfake regulation 

The Secretary of the Ministry of Electronics and IT, S Krishnan, recently held a meeting with stakeholders discussing the role of bot accounts in amplifying misleading information online. In the meeting, the government sought details on whether platforms possessed sufficient resources to curb such bot networks and enquired whether there is a need for a new policy or regulation to address this issue. The government also discussed the regulation of AI-generated deepfakes, asking whether copyright law or personality rights could be used to counter any synthetic content based on the likeness of a person.

ESYA’S TAKE:  Letting people use copyright law to block the use of their likeness could create tensions between the rights of different stakeholders. Normally, features like a person’s face or voice are protected through personality rights, not copyright. Additionally, copyright usually belongs to the person who created the work – for instance, the copyright over a person’s image lies with the photographer. Thus, if individuals are allowed to claim copyright over their personal characteristics, it could trigger a conflict with creators’ intellectual property rights.