#FactCheck-AI-Generated Image of Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma Falsely Shared as a Real Candid Moment

Introduction
‍

Meta Platforms is experiencing a long-term surge of lawsuits that not only question particular practices, but also the very design and governance of its platforms, across the United States and beyond. This range of privacy breaches to youth mental health damages and antitrust issues are all indicative of a new era of judicial, regulatory, and civil society scrutiny of the duties of big tech firms. The main question is no longer whether harmful content is placed on platforms, but to what extent they are actively creating harm-producing environments.
‍

From Content to Conduct: A Turning Point in Legal Strategy
‍

Over the years, Meta and other sites have depended on legal safeguards like the US Communications Decency Act, Section 230, which protects companies against liability due to user-created content. New ways of testing that protection are now being tried.

Recent incidents have shifted off the blame of particular content and has placed the emphasis on the design of the platform. Courts are becoming more receptive to consider whether the characteristics of infinite scroll, algorithmic amplification, and engagement-based ranking systems are contributing to quantifiable harm.

In March 2026, a California jury declared that Meta and Google were negligent in creating platforms that led to youth addiction and mental health problems. The jury decided that Meta and Google were to pay off a joint sum of 6 million dollars in damages, with 70 percent of the sum being charged on Meta. It is a bellwether case, which means that it is related to about 2,000 other pending cases by parents and school districts. This change is important as it avoids legal barriers. When the liability is linked to the design decisions instead of user-created content, accountability begins to shift. 
‍

The Youth Harm Cases: A Big Tobacco Moment
‍

Social media are becoming the subject of increased scrutiny by courts and regulators as products that have quantifiable psychological impacts. The most impactful group of lawsuits against Meta is, perhaps, the one concerning youth mental health.

A day prior to the California verdict, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages due to failure to safeguard young users against child predators on Instagram and Facebook, and found that the company had lied to consumers about the safety of its products and violated state consumer protection laws.

Similar arguments have been presented in other lawsuits filed by attorneys general in over 30 states, and the cases reflect previous regulatory turning points in other industries such as tobacco. The question that courts are not merely asking is whether there is harm or not. They are questioning whether businesses were aware of creating systems that capitalize on behavioral weaknesses. It has been reported in internal documents and accounts of former employees that Meta made a profit by intentionally turning its platforms into addictions to children, with algorithmic functions tailored to drive users into engagement loops, maximising time on platform to the detriment of wellbeing.

Meta has refuted these characterisations, claiming that teen mental health is multifaceted and cannot be blamed on an individual app. The companies have indicated that they will appeal the verdicts.
‍

Privacy and Data Misuse: An Ongoing Fault Line
‍

Platform design is not the only issue that Meta faces in legal matters. Cases centered on privacy have been a recurrent problem in the last ten years, and previous cases have claimed that Facebook monitored users even after they have logged out, scanned personal messages, and utilized personal data in a manner that was beyond user expectations. In more recent times, in April 2026, a class action suit was filed claiming that WhatsApp messages were accessed by Meta employees and third-party contractors, despite the long-standing end-to-end encryption guarantees of the platform.

These instances indicate a structural problem that is consistent. Consent mechanisms and privacy policies tend to be out of date with the reality of data use, and the gap between legal compliance and what users actually know or expect.
‍

Antitrust: A Win, But Not a Clean One
‍

One of the legal fronts was Meta all the way. In November 2025, a judge in the US District Court, James Boasberg, declared that Meta was not a social networking monopoly, finding that the FTC did not demonstrate that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp by the company were against the antitrust law. The decision has since been appealed by the FTC, which continues to argue that "Meta broke our antitrust laws by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp, and that American consumers have been harmed by it.

The case also demonstrates a significant drawback of the antitrust law as a form of regulation of tech companies. By the time the trial occurred five years after the lawsuit was initiated, the social media market had evolved such that Tik Tok was a major competitor, undermining the market definition claims of the FTC. The structural issue of whether a few platforms are too powerful in the communication of the masses is not answered, although the legal claim in this instance might have been unsuccessful.
‍

Policy Takeaways: What This Means Going Forward
‍

The accumulating number of lawsuits against Meta provides a number of valuable lessons to policymakers.

1. Platform design has become a regulatory topic. Laws should go beyond content regulation and deal with the construction of systems. Engagement maximising features can also increase harm, and this trade-off must be governed explicitly.
2. Transparency should be mandatory and not discretionary. Privacy policies and disclosures on platforms are usually too complicated or ambiguous. Regulators might be required to make more transparent and standardised disclosures regarding the use of data and the operation of recommendation systems.
3. Section 230 safeguards are under reinterpretation. Courts are becoming open to restrict immunity in cases where the harm is associated with the conduct of the platform and not the content of the user. This would redefine the law of all digital platforms, and not only Meta.
4. Cross-border coordination is needed. Meta is an international company, yet the regulatory reaction is still divided. This will require more coordination among jurisdictions to guarantee uniform enforcement and to eliminate regulatory arbitrage.
   ‍

Conclusion
‍

The lawsuits of Meta are not single cases. They are a more general reconsideration of the regulation of digital platforms and the accountability of those responsible when design decisions have harm at scale. In the wider context of the technology ecosystem, the implications are structural. Courts are starting to question not only what is hosted on them, but how they work and why they are constructed in the manner they are.

The age of minimal responsibility is being supplanted by a more challenging requirement: that platforms should foresee, quantify, and alleviate the harms they produce. The result of these cases will not only decide the future of Meta in terms of legal matters. They will influence the regulations of the digital economy in the years to come.

‍

References
‍

1. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict 
2. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/jury-finds-meta-and-youtube-liable-in-landmark-youth-addiction-case
3. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-ftc-whatsapp-instagram/
4. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/20/ftc-appeals-metaruling-antitrust-instagram-whatsapp.html‍
5. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjw0zgz9zyo

Along with the loss of important files and information, data loss can result in downtime and lost revenue. Unexpected occurrences, including natural catastrophes, cyber-attacks, hardware malfunctions, and human mistakes, can result in the loss of crucial data. Recovery from these without a backup plan may be difficult, if not impossible.

The fact is that the largest threat to the continuation of your organization today is cyberattacks. Because of this, disaster recovery planning should be approached from a data security standpoint. If not, you run the risk of leaving your vital systems exposed to a cyberattack. Cybercrime has been more frequent and violent over the past few years. In the past, major organizations and global businesses were the main targets of these attacks by criminals. But nowadays, businesses of all sizes need to be cautious of digital risks.

Many firms might suffer a financial hit even from a brief interruption to regular business operations. But imagine if a situation forced a company to close for a few days or perhaps weeks! The consequences would be disastrous.

One must have a comprehensive disaster recovery plan in place that is connected with the cybersecurity strategy, given the growing danger of cybercrime.

Let’s look at why having a solid data security plan and a dependable backup solution are essential for safeguarding a company from external digital threats.

1. Apply layered approaches

One must specifically use precautionary measures like antivirus software and firewalls. One must also implement strict access control procedures to restrict who may access the network.

One must also implement strict access control procedures to restrict who may access the network.

2. Understand the threat situation

If someone is unaware of the difficulties one should be prepared for, how can they possibly expect to develop a successful cybersecurity strategy? They can’t, is the simple response.

Without a solid understanding of the threat landscape, developing the plan will require a lot too much speculation. With this strategy, one can allocate resources poorly or perhaps completely miss a threat.

Because of this, one should educate themselves on the many cyber risks that businesses now must contend with.

3. Adopt a proactive security stance

Every effective cybersecurity plan includes a number of reactive processes that aren’t activated until an attack occurs. Although these reactive strategies will always be useful in cybersecurity, the main focus of your plan should be proactiveness.

There are several methods to be proactive, but the most crucial one is to analyze your network for possible threats regularly. your network securely. Having a SaaS Security Posture Management (SSPM) solution in place is beneficial for SaaS applications, in particular.

A preventive approach can lessen the effects of a data breach and aid in keeping data away from attackers.

4. Evaluate your ability to respond to incidents

Test your cybersecurity disaster recovery plan’s effectiveness by conducting exercises and evaluating the outcomes. Track pertinent data during the exercise to see if your plan is working as expected.

Meet with your team after each drill to evaluate what went well and what didn’t. This strategy enables you to continuously strengthen your plan and solve weaknesses. This procedure may be repeated endlessly and should be.

You must include cybersecurity protections in your entire disaster recovery plan if you want to make sure that your business is resilient in the face of cyber threats. You may strengthen data security and recover from data loss and corruption by putting in place a plan that focuses on both the essential components of proactive data protection and automated data backup and recovery.

For instance, Google distributes all data among several computers in various places while storing each user’s data on a single machine or collection of machines. To prevent a single point of failure, chunk the data and duplicate it across several platforms. As an additional security safeguard, they give these data chunks random names that are unreadable to the human eye.^[1]

The process of creating and storing copies of data that may be used to safeguard organizations against data loss is referred to as backup and recovery. In the case of a main data failure, the backup’s goal is to make a duplicate of the data that can be restored.

5. Take zero-trust principles

Don’t presume that anything or anybody can be trusted; zero trust is a new label for an old idea. Check each device, user, service, or other entity’s trustworthiness before providing it access, then periodically recheck trustworthiness while access is allowed to make sure the entity hasn’t been hacked. Reduce the consequences of any breach of confidence by granting each entity access to only the resources it requires. The number of events and the severity of those that do happen can both be decreased by using zero-trust principles.

6. Understand the dangers posed by supply networks

A nation-state can effectively penetrate a single business, and that business may provide thousands of other businesses with tainted technological goods or services. These businesses will then become compromised, which might disclose their own customers’ data to the original attackers or result in compromised services being offered to customers. Millions of businesses and people might be harmed as a result of what began with one infiltrating corporation.

In conclusion, a defense-in-depth approach to cybersecurity won’t vanish. Organizations may never be able to totally eliminate the danger of a cyberattack, but having a variety of technologies and procedures in place can assist in guaranteeing that the risks are kept to a minimum.

References:

• https://www.comparitech.com/vpn/cybersecurity-cyber-crime-statistics-facts-trends/
• https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/data-security/
• https://www.ibm.com/in-en/topics/cybersecurity
• https://www.cybersecurityforme.com/what-is-the-future-of-cybersecurity/

[1] https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/data-security/

Introduction

Assisted Reproductive Technology (“ART”) refers to a diverse set of medical procedures designed to aid individuals or couples in achieving pregnancy when conventional methods are unsuccessful. This umbrella term encompasses various fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), and gamete and embryo manipulation. ART procedures involve the manipulation of both male and female reproductive components to facilitate conception.

The dynamic landscape of data flows within the healthcare sector, notably in the realm of ART, demands a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between privacy regulations and medical practices. In this context, the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011, play a pivotal role, designating health information as "sensitive personal data or information" and underscoring the importance of safeguarding individuals' privacy. This sensitivity is particularly pronounced in the ART sector, where an array of personal data, ranging from medical records to genetic information, is collected and processed. The recent Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, in conjunction with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, establishes a framework for the regulation of ART clinics and banks, presenting a layered approach to data protection.

A note on data generated by ART

Data flows in any sector are scarcely uniform and often not easily classified under straight-jacket categories. Consequently, mapping and identifying data and its types become pivotal. It is believed that most data flows in the healthcare sector are highly sensitive and personal in nature, which may severely compromise the privacy and safety of an individual if breached. The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules”) categorizes any information pertaining to physical, physiological, mental conditions or medical records and history as “sensitive personal data or information”; this definition is broad enough to encompass any data collected by any ART facility or equipment. These include any information collected during the screening of patients, pertaining to ovulation and menstrual cycles, follicle and sperm count, ultrasound results, blood work etc. It also includes pre-implantation genetic testing on embryos to detect any genetic abnormality. 

But data flows extend beyond mere medical procedures and technology. Health data also involves any medical procedures undertaken, the amount of medicine and drugs administered during any procedure, its resultant side effects, recovery etc. Any processing of the above-mentioned information, in turn, may generate more personal data points relating to an individual’s political affiliations, race, ethnicity, genetic data such as biometrics and DNA etc.; It is seen that different ethnicities and races react differently to the same/similar medication and have different propensities to genetic diseases. Further, it is to be noted that data is not only collected by professionals but also by intelligent equipment like AI which may be employed by any facility to render their service. Additionally, dissemination of information under exceptional circumstances (e.g. medical emergency) also affects how data may be classified. Considerations are further nuanced when the fundamental right to identity of a child conceived and born via ART may be in conflict with the fundamental right to privacy of a donor to remain anonymous. 

Intersection of Privacy laws and ART laws: 

In India, ART technology is regulated by the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (“ART Act”). With this, the Union aims to regulate and supervise assisted reproductive technology clinics and ART banks, prevent misuse and ensure safe and ethical practice of assisted reproductive technology services. When read with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and other ancillary guidelines, the two legislations provide some framework regulations for the digital privacy of health-based apps.

The ART Act establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Registry (“National Registry”) which acts as a central database for all clinics and banks and their nature of services. The Act also establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board (“National Board”)  under the Surrogacy Act to monitor the implementation of the act and advise the central government on policy matters. It also supervises the functioning of the National Registry, liaises with State Boards and curates a code of conduct for professionals working in ART clinics and banks. Under the DPDP Act, these bodies (i.e. National Board, State Board, ART clinics and banks) are most likely classified as data fiduciaries (primarily clinics and banks), data processors (these may include National Board and State boards) or an amalgamation of both (these include any appropriate authority established under the ART Act for investigation of complaints, suspend or cancellation of registration of clinics etc.) depending on the nature of work undertaken by them. If so classified, then the duties and liabilities of data fiduciaries and processors would necessarily apply to these bodies. As a result, all bodies would necessarily have to adopt Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) and other organizational measures to ensure compliance with privacy laws in place. This may be considered one of the most critical considerations of any ART facility since any data collected by them would be sensitive personal data pertaining to health, regulated by the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules 2011”). These rules provide for how sensitive personal data or information are to be collected, handled and processed by anyone.

The ART Act independently also provides for the duties of ART clinics and banks in the country. ART clinics and banks are required to inform the commissioning couple/woman of all procedures undertaken and all costs, risks, advantages, and side effects of their selected procedure. It mandatorily ensures that all information collected by such clinics and banks to not informed to anyone except the database established by the National Registry or in cases of medical emergency or on order of court. Data collected by clinics and banks (these include details on donor oocytes, sperm or embryos used or unused) are required to be detailed and must be submitted to the National Registry online. ART banks are also required to collect personal information of donors including name, Aadhar number, address and any other details. By mandating online submission, the ART Act is harmonized with the DPDP Act, which regulates all digital personal data and emphasises free, informed consent.

Conclusion

With the increase in active opt-ins for ART, data privacy becomes a vital consideration for all healthcare facilities and professionals. Safeguard measures are not only required on a corporate level but also on a governmental level. It is to be noted that in the 262 Session of the Rajya Sabha, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology reported 165 data breach incidents involving citizen data from January 2018 to October 2023 from the Central Identities Data Repository despite publicly denying. This discovery puts into question the safety and integrity of data that may be submitted to the National Registry database, especially given the type of data (both personal and sensitive information) it aims to collate. At present the ART Act is well supported by the DPDP Act. However, further judicial and legislative deliberations are required to effectively regulate and balance the interests of all stakeholders.

References

• The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011
• Caring for Intimate Data in Fertility Technologies https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3411764.3445132 
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
• https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/pharmacogenomics-and-race-can-heritage-affect-drug-disposition