#FactCheck -Viral video falsely linked to Operation Sindoor and India–Pakistan conflict claims

Introduction

India is becoming more digital. People are using cards and phones to pay for things. This means there is a risk of people stealing card information and committing fraud. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard or PCI DSS is a set of rules that helps companies keep card information safe. It was created by the PCI Security Standards Council, which was started by Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover and JCB. The goal of PCI DSS is to reduce the risk of data breaches and card fraud by making sure companies have security controls in place. For India, where digital payments are becoming more popular, PCI DSS is becoming a thing to do.

Applicability in India

PCI DSS applies to all companies in India that store, process or transmit card information. This includes banks, payment companies like Razorpay, PayU and CCAvenue and online sellers. Even companies that use a hosted payment page are responsible for following the rules. Companies that have their payment forms and handle card information have to follow more rules.

Why PCI DSS Matters

Payment security is very important for customers to trust a company. If a company has a security breach it can expose a lot of card information. Damage the company's reputation. In India, where cybercrime's a big problem, PCI DSS helps companies keep card information safe. It has rules for firewalls, encryption, access controls and regular testing to prevent fraud.

Regulatory Landscape: The RBIs Role

PCI DSS is not a law in India. The Reserve Bank of India or RBI has made it a requirement. The RBI has rules that require companies to follow PCI DSS and have security audits. Non-bank companies have to get permission from the RBI and follow rules to store payment information in India. This makes PCI DSS a standard for keeping card information safe in India.

Key Requirements and the Compliance Process

The current version of PCI DSS has twelve requirements that companies have to follow. These requirements include building a network protecting card information and regular testing. Companies have to start by identifying what parts of their system handle card information. Then do a gap analysis to see what they need to do to comply. Smaller companies can usually do this in a week but bigger companies may take several months.

Common Challenges and Practical Solutions

Some problems companies face when trying to comply with PCI DSS include old computer systems that cannot handle modern encryption and unclear rules that make it hard to know what to do. Some solutions include separating the card information system from the rest of the network using tokens and encryption to keep card information safe and regularly checking for vulnerabilities.

Business and Regulatory Benefits

Following PCI DSS rules can help companies avoid penalties and have security breaches. It can also make it easier for companies to work with banks and card networks and build trust with customers. Regulators also look favorably on companies that follow the rules.

Recent Developments and Trends

The RBI has been making rules and requiring companies to follow PCI DSS more closely. As digital payments become more popular it is likely that the RBI will keep making rules to keep card information safe.

As India's digital economy grows, keeping payment information safe is becoming more important. PCI DSS is a set of rules that helps companies keep card information safe. The RBI has made it a requirement for companies to follow these rules. Companies that follow the rules can build trust with customers. Avoid security breaches.

Conclusion

As India's digital economy deepens, protecting payment data is no longer optional; it is the price of participating in the card ecosystem. PCI DSS gives banks, fintechs, gateways and merchants a common, internationally recognised language for security, while RBI's guidelines add local regulatory teeth. Organisations that treat compliance as a continuous discipline, rather than a once-a-year audit exercise, will find it easier to earn customer trust, avoid costly breaches, and scale with confidence. For every business touching cardholder data in India, the message is clear: PCI DSS compliance is now foundational to running a secure, trustworthy digital payments operation.

References

1.  https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/document_library/
2. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_ViewMasDirections.aspx
3. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx
4. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11822
5. https://www.incorpx.io/blog/pci-dss-compliance-ecommerce-fintech-india
6.  https://cyraacs.com/pci-dss-compliance-checklist
7. https://www.skydo.com/blog/pci-dss-compliance-guide
8. https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/

‍

Introduction

Misinformation poses a significant challenge to public health policymaking since it undermines efforts to promote effective health interventions and protect public well-being. The spread of inaccurate information, particularly through online channels such as social media and internet platforms, further complicates the decision-making process for policymakers since it perpetuates public confusion and distrust. This misinformation can lead to resistance against health initiatives, such as vaccination programs, and fuels scepticism towards scientifically-backed health guidelines.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation surrounding healthcare largely encompassed the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption, marijuana use, eating habits, physical exercise etc. However, there has been a marked shift in the years since. One such example is the outcry against palm oil in 2024: it is an ingredient prevalent in numerous food and cosmetic products, and came under the scanner after a number of claims that palmitic acid, which is present in palm oil, is detrimental to our health. However, scientific research by reputable institutions globally established that there is no cause for concern regarding the health risks posed by palmitic acid. Such trends and commentaries tend to create a parallel unscientific discourse that has the potential to not only impact individual choices but also public opinion and as a result, market developments and policy conversations. 

A prevailing narrative during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic was that the virus had been engineered to control society and boost hospital profits. The extensive misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and its management and care increased vaccine hesitancy amongst people worldwide. It is worth noting that vaccine hesitancy has been a consistent trend historically; the World Health Organisation flagged vaccine hesitancy as one of the main threats to global health, and there have been other instances where a majority of the population refused to get vaccinated anticipating unverified, long-lasting side effects. For example, research from 2016 observed a significant level of public skepticism regarding the development and approval process of the Zika vaccine in Africa. Further studies emphasised the urgent need to disseminate accurate information about the Zika virus on online platforms to help curb the spread of the pandemic. 

In India during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite multiple official advisories, notifications and guidelines issued by the government and ICMR, people continued to remain opposed to vaccination, which resulted in inflated mortality rates within the country. Vaccination hesitancy was also compounded by anti-vaccination celebrities who claimed that vaccines were dangerous and contributed in large part to the conspiracy theories doing the rounds. Similar hesitation was noted in misinformation surrounding the MMR vaccines and their likely role in causing autism was examined.  At the time of the crisis, the Indian government also had to tackle disinformation-induced fraud surrounding the supply of oxygens in hospitals. Many critically-ill patients relied on fake news and unverified sources that falsely portrayed the availability of beds, oxygen cylinders and even home set-ups, only to be cheated out of money. 

The above examples highlight the difficulty health officials face in administering adequate healthcare. The special case of the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted how current legal frameworks failed to address misinformation and disinformation, which impedes effective policymaking. It also highlights how taking corrective measures against health-related misinformation becomes difficult since such corrective action creates an uncomfortable gap in an individual’s mind, and it is seen that people ignore accurate information that may help bridge the gap. Misinformation, coupled with the infodemic trend, also leads to false memory syndrome, whereby people fail to differentiate between authentic information and fake narratives. Simple efforts to correct misperceptions usually backfire and even strengthen initial beliefs, especially in the context of complex issues like healthcare. Policymakers thus struggle with balancing policy making and making people receptive to said policies in the backdrop of their tendencies to reject/suspect authoritative action. Examples of the same can be observed on both the domestic front and internationally. In the US, for example, the traditional healthcare system rations access to healthcare through a combination of insurance costs and options versus out-of-pocket essential expenses. While this has been a subject of debate for a long time, it hadn’t created a large scale public healthcare crisis because the incentives offered to the medical professionals and public trust in the delivery of essential services helped balance the conversation. In recent times, however, there has been a narrative shift that sensationalises the system as an issue of deliberate “denial of care,” which has led to concerns about harms to patients.

Policy Recommendations

The hindrances posed by misinformation in policymaking are further exacerbated against the backdrop of policymakers relying on social media as a method to measure public sentiment, consensus and opinions. If misinformation about an outbreak is not effectively addressed, it could hinder individuals from adopting necessary protective measures and potentially worsen the spread of the epidemic. To improve healthcare policymaking amidst the challenges posed by health misinformation, policymakers must take a multifaceted approach. This includes convening a broad coalition of central, state, local, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, and research partners to assess the impact of misinformation and develop effective preventive measures. Intergovernmental collaborations such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should be encouraged whereby doctors debunk online medical misinformation, in the backdrop of the increased reliance on online forums for medical advice. Furthermore, increasing investment in research dedicated to understanding misinformation, along with the ongoing modernization of public health communications, is essential. Enhancing the resources and technical support available to state and local public health agencies will also enable them to better address public queries and concerns, as well as counteract misinformation. Additionally, expanding efforts to build long-term resilience against misinformation through comprehensive educational programs is crucial for fostering a well-informed public capable of critically evaluating health information.

From an individual perspective, since almost half a billion people use WhatsApp it has become a platform where false health claims can spread rapidly. This has led to a rise in the use of fake health news. Viral WhatsApp messages containing fake health warnings can be dangerous, hence it is always recommended to check such messages with vigilance. This highlights the growing concern about the potential dangers of misinformation and the need for more accurate information on medical matters.

Conclusion

The proliferation of misinformation in healthcare poses significant challenges to effective policymaking and public health management. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the role of misinformation in vaccine hesitancy, fraud, and increased mortality rates. There is an urgent need for robust strategies to counteract false information and build public trust in health interventions; this includes policymakers engaging in comprehensive efforts, including intergovernmental collaboration, enhanced research, and public health communication modernization, to combat misinformation. By fostering a well-informed public through education and vigilance, we can mitigate the impact of misinformation and promote healthier communities.

References

1. van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Jin, Y. (2019), “Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source” Health Communication, 35(5), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295 
2. “Health Misinformation”, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/health-misinformation/index.html 
3. Mechanic, David, “The Managed Care Backlash: Perceptions and Rhetoric in Health Care Policy and the Potential for Health Care Reform”, Rutgers University. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751184/pdf/milq_195.pdf 
4. “Bad actors are weaponising health misinformation in India”, Financial Express, April 2024.

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-bad-actors-are-weaponising-health-misinformation-in-india-3448871/ 

5. “Role of doctors in eradicating misinformation in the medical sector.”, Times of India, 1 July 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/national-doctors-day-role-of-doctors-in-eradicating-misinformation-in-the-healthcare-sector/articleshow/111399098.cms 

‍

Introduction
‍

The rise of artificial intelligence has transformed how individuals search for information, buy and compare products online. Unlike the traditional search engines like Google  that presents the user with a set of links and directs users to websites, AI-powered systems provide synthesised answers and recommendations which means we don't have to click through every link to find what we are looking for, we simply have to ask an LLM and it provides recommendations based on our needs expressed through prompt. This development has raised important legal and commercial questions, one such question was addressed in the judgement of Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others (2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738) decided by HMJ Ravi Krishan Kapur of Calcutta High court on 20 May 2026. If an AI platform becomes a primary source of information, can a business demand inclusion in its responses? Is it a legal injury if the LLM omits a business? More fundamentally, how do the existing laws classify technologies that not only process information, but also generate new content? These were the questions that came before Calcutta High Court. Although the dispute arose from Indiamart’s complaint regarding visibility on ChatGPT search, the judgement explored beyond the disagreement between two private entities.

‍

The Dispute
‍

IndiaMart is one of India’s largest electronic business-to-business marketplaces since 1996, serving millions of buyers and sellers across India. They also have registered trademarks and their entire business depends on visibility on the internet considering the digitalisation of the market. Open AI launched ChatGPT search in October 2024, which is a feature that supplements AI responses with links to relevant web sources. Indiamart alleged that ChatGPT was not displaying links to their online platform in the same way that it displayed links to other competing services or individual sellers. A major grievance raised by Indiamart was that ChatGPT allegedly bypassed IndiaMart market listings by directing users to sellers’ individual websites while continuing to provide platform level links for other competing platforms. Hence, they contended that this practice diverted users away from their platform and negatively affected their business interests. The company argued that such exclusion amounted to discriminatory treatment and resulted in economic harm, diluted its trademarks and amounted to disparagement. They alleged that it violated their rights under article 14, 19, 21 under the constitution and rights under IT Act and IT Rules also. When IndiaMart sought an explanation from OpenAI, the company stated that its decision was influenced by the inclusion of IndiaMart in the United States Trade Representative (USTR) Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy 2024, a U.S. government report that identifies online and physical marketplaces alleged to facilitate intellectual property infringements. IndiaMart challenged this justification, arguing that the USTR report has no statutory or binding force in India. It further alleged selective discrimination, pointing out that several other platforms featured on the same USTR list including DHGate, Pinduoduo, Shopee, and Taobao continued to remain accessible through ChatGPT-generated responses. Consequently, IndiaMart approached the Calcutta High Court seeking interim relief directing ChatGPT to display and provide access to IndiaMart links in its responses.

‍

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT

‍

IndiaMart's contentions: They argued that ChatGPT, because its search feature, performs the role of an "intermediary" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act and is therefore required to comply with the obligations imposed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Relying on Rule 3(1)(n), IndiaMart argued that an intermediary cannot engage in discriminatory treatment of platforms or selectively restrict access to information. IndiaMart further maintained that users have a right to access information relating to its platform and that the omission of IndiaMart links from ChatGPT's responses violated this interest. They alleged violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, along with the broader principle of a user's "right to know", to argue that OpenAI owed an obligation to display IndiaMart listings in response to relevant queries. In addition, IndiaMart alleged that the exclusion of its links caused commercial harm, diluted its trademarks, amounted to disparagement, and constituted an unfair trade practice that adversely affected its business and reputation.

OpenAI's contentions: OpenAI asserted that IndiaMart had no legally enforceable ‘Right to visibility’ on ChatGPT. They argued that neither contract, statute, nor constitutional law imposed any obligation on OpenAI to display, prioritise, or recommend IndiaMart links in response to user queries. In the absence of any recognised legal right, there could be no actionable injury and therefore no valid cause of action. OpenAI also challenged the classification of ChatGPT as an "intermediary" under the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to OpenAI, ChatGPT does not merely host, transmit, or facilitate access to third-party content but also generates responses through its large language model (LLM) and therefore functions more closely as an "originator" than an intermediary. Consequently, the obligations applicable to intermediaries under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including those relied upon by IndiaMart, were inapplicable. With respect to the USTR Notorious Markets List, OpenAI submitted that its reliance on the report formed part of its internal risk-management and business policies. Such decisions, it argued, were matters of private commercial judgment and not ordinarily subject to judicial review. OpenAI further pointed out that IndiaMart had also previously blocked ChatGPT from accessing and crawling its website that weakened the company's demand for greater visibility within ChatGPT-generated responses.

Court’s decision: The court rejected Indiamart's claim that they were entitled to be displayed in ChatGPT searches. The court emphasised the autonomy of private businesses, the court held that the right to carry on trade and business is "inviolable" and that no law can compel one private entity to operate their platform for the benefit of another, which is based on foundational economic philosophy of laissez faire. Unless there is a contractual, statutory or constitutional obligation, a platform has no duty to the other platform to promote or advance their economic interest. Applying this principle, the court found no such duty or “vested legal right” that entitled IndiaMart’s visibility on ChatGPT. The court reasoned that even if users possess the ‘right to know’, Indiamart could not convert that interest into an enforceable claim under article 19(1)(g) or other legal provision. The court looked at the dispute as one arising from commercial disadvantage rather than violation of any legally protected right. Although the reduced visibility may have had economic consequences, economic harm does not by itself create a cause of action.

The court also took into consideration whether ChatGPT should be classified as an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or as an originator under Section 2(1)(za). This was an important distinction, because the intermediaries can claim safe harbour protection under section 79 of the IT act, but the originators cannot. The court expressed a preliminary view that ChatGPT is generative capabilities, place it closer to an originator than an intermediary because, unlike conventional search engines, which identify and rank existing information, Generative AI systems, analyse the data and produce new output based on algorithms, which is in response to the user’s prompt. The Court also referenced the NITI Aayog National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (pages 7 to 12) to support its observations that ChatGPT does not merely store, host or transmit information, it can produce essays, research material, code, creative writing, and other forms of content that did not previously exist in that exact form, hence extending beyond the conventional understanding of an intermediary. The court also recognised that it is a vexed issue and remains unsettled because AI systems operate in response to users instructions and do not function independently, which is why the court refrained from providing a definitive classification and acknowledged that the question may ultimately require legislative clarification as well.

In addition to this, the Court took the view that the IndiaMart’s grievances did not amount to an Intellectual property dispute, as they found no trademark infringement or dilution because any reference to the "IndiaMart" mark was merely descriptive and did not constitute commercial use "in the course of trade" under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. IndiaMart also hadn’t demonstrated any false or misleading use of its trademark.

Similarly, the Court found that claims of disparagement, trade libel, and injurious falsehood were unsustainable because such claims require the publication of a false statement that harms reputation and since ChatGPT had not published any derogatory statement about IndiaMart, the mere omission of links could not amount to disparagement or libel. The Court relied on Tech Plus Media v. Jyoti Janda, that allegations of unfairness or copyright infringement must be supported by specific pleadings and evidence.

Beyond the immediate dispute, the judgment shed light on the growing difficulty of applying legal categories created for an earlier internet era to generative AI systems. The Information Technology Act was enacted at a time when internet regulation focused primarily on websites, service providers, and electronic communications and therefore existing classifications may not adequately address the hybrid nature of contemporary AI technologies. The Court acknowledged OpenAI's concern that granting IndiaMart's request could trigger floodgates of litigation on similar claims from businesses dissatisfied with AI-generated visibility, however, it clarified that such concerns cannot outweigh genuine legal claims or fundamental rights. The Court suggested that legislative intervention may eventually be necessary.

‍

Conclusion
‍

This judgement not only addressed the visibility issue in AI generated responses, but also whether visibility itself can become a legally protected interest in AI-driven searches? As more and more users rely on AI generated output for their preference rather than traditional search engine output, the power to decide what information is displayed and what is not will eventually become economically significant. The Calcutta High Court through this judgement declined to create any such right through judicial interventions and also highlighted that the existing legal framework is not adequately equipped to address the novel challenges posed by generative AI.

‍(This blog is based on the judgment in Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738, decided on May 20, 2026 by the Calcutta High Court, and related reporting by LiveLaw and SCC Times.)

‍

References
‍

• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court/no-right-to-visibility-exists-on-private-ai-platforms-calcutta-high-court-refuses-to-direct-chatgpt-to-display-indiamart-links-536891
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/06/03/chatgpt-intermediary-originator-it-act-calcutta-high-court/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198449710/

‍