#FactCheck-Stone Pelting Video from Mathura Misrepresented as Part of “Cockroach Janata Party” Campaign; Fact Check Reveals Old Incident

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

Introduction

Since February 2020 the government has been taking keen steps to safeguard the Indian markets and the consumer, this could be seen in the forms of policies and exemptions for the market players and the consumers, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the markets places became vulnerable to loss and various forms of new crimes and frauds. The Government recently tabled the Jan Vishwas bill which is an aftermath of the Vivad se Vishwas Bill, 2020 which was tabled in February 2020 for creating a safe and dynamic market, this bill is a clear example of how AtmaNirbhar Bharat plays a crucial role in nations development.

What is Jan Vishwas Bill, 2022

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2022 is a 108-page bill introduced in the Lok Sabha by the Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal. The statement of objects and reasons of the Bill states, “To amend certain enactments for decriminalizing and rationalizing minor offenses to further enhance trust-based governance for ease of living and doing business.” The bill aims to promote ease of doing business in India by decriminalizing minor offences and amending 183 provisions in 42 Acts administered by 19 ministries. The bill proposes to replace minor offences with monetary penalties and rationalize existing monetary penalties based on the gravity of the offences. The Acts to be amended by the bill include-

• Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
• Public Debt Act, 1944
• Pharmacy Act, 1948
• Cinematograph Act, 1952
• Copyright Act, 1957
• Patents Act, 1970
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
• Trade Marks Act, 1999l Railways Act, 1989
• Information Technology Act, 2000
• Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002
• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
• Legal Metrology Act, 2009
• Factoring Regulation Act, 2011

The bill aims to decriminalize a large number of minor offences and replace them with monetary penalties. This step by the government is a clear indication of how important the market regulations are, in recent times Google was imposed with a penalty of 1300 crores and 900 crores for violating competitive market practices, these penalties, and criminalised actions will ensure proper compliance to laws of the land thus creating a blanket of safeguards for the Indian consumer and netizen.‍

What will the Ease of Business be?

The Government has been critical in pinpointing various parameters and factors to improve the ease of business in the country, this bill comes at the right time when we can see numerous start-ups and entrepreneurs emerging in our country. The parameters are as follows-

• Starting a Business of all
• Dealing with Construction Permits
• Getting Electricity
• Registering Property
• Getting Credit
• Protecting
• Minority Investors
• Paying Taxes
• Trading across Borders
• Enforcing Contracts and Resolving Insolvency

These parameters have been created with a sight on the future of the markets and how external factors like the Russia-Ukraine war can influence the markets. According to Minister Piyush Goyal, the fear of imprisonment for minor offences is a major factor hindering the growth of the business ecosystem and individual confidence in India. The Jan Vishwas Bill, 2022 aims to address this issue by replacing minor offences with monetary penalties. The bill also proposes an increase of 10% in the minimum amount of fine and penalty levied after every three years, once the bill becomes a law.

Conclusion

The bill will create a level playing field for the market players and the consumers with the backing of strong legislation and precedents thus maintaining transparency and accountability in the system. The amended provisions will allow various already existing legislation to come in tune with the current times and emerging technologies. The nation is at a critical juncture to fabricate policies and laws to address the issues and threats of the future and hence such a bill will be the strengthening pillar of the Indian markets and cyber-ecosystem. The Jan Vishwas Bill, 2022 has been referred to a 31-member joint parliamentary committee for scrutiny. The committee includes members from the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and will submit its report to parliament by the second part of the Budget session in 2023, The members from the Lok Sabha include PP Chaudhary, Sanjay Jaiswal, Queen Ojha, Rajendra Agrawal, Gaurav Gogoi, A Raja, Rajendra Agarwal, Poonam Pramod Mahajan, and Sougata Ray.

Pretext

On 20th October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android Mobile device ecosystem, apart from issuing cease and desist orders. The CCI also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.  Smart mobile devices need an operating system (OS) to run applications (apps) and programs. Android is one such mobile operating system that Google acquired in 2005. In the instant matter, the CCI examined various practices of Google w.r.t. licensing of this Android mobile operating system and various proprietary mobile applications of Google (e.g., Play Store, Google Search, Google Chrome, YouTube, etc.).

The Issue

Google was found to be misusing its dominant position in the tech market, and the same was the reason behind the penalty. Google argued about the competitive constraints being faced from Apple. In relation to understanding the extent of competition between Google’s Android ecosystem and Apple’s iOS ecosystem, the CCI noted the differences in the two business models, which affect the underlying incentives of business decisions. Apple’s business is primarily based on a vertically integrated smart device ecosystem that focuses on the sale of high-end smart devices with state-of-the-art software components. In contrast, Google’s business was found to be driven by the ultimate intent of increasing users on its platforms so that they interact with its revenue-earning service, i.e., online searches, which directly affects the sale of online advertising services by Google. It was seen that google had created a dominant position among the android phone manufacturers as they were made to have a set of google apps preinstalled in the device to increase the user’s dependency on google services. The CCI felt that Google had created a dominant position to which they replied that the same operations are done by Apple as well, to which the commission responded that apple is a phone and app manufacturer and they have Apple-owned apps in Apple devices only, but Google here in had made a pseudo mandate for android manufactures to have the google apps pre-installed which is, in turn, a possible way of disrupting the market equilibrium and violative of market practices. The CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in India, CCI delineated the following five relevant markets in the present matter –

• The market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India
• The market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India
• The market for general web search services in India
• The market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India
• The market for online video hosting platforms (OVHP) in India.

Supreme Courts Opinion

In October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, exploited its dominant position in Android and told it to remove restrictions on device makers, including those related to the pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. Google lost a challenge in the Supreme Court to block the directives, as the learned court refused to put a stay on the imposed penalty, further giving seven days to comply. The Supreme Court has said a lower tribunal—where Google first challenged the Android directives—can continue to hear the company’s appeal and must rule by March 31.

Counterpoint Research estimates that about 97% of 600 million smartphones in India run on Android. Apple has just a 3% share. Hoping to block the implementation of the CCI directives, Google challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court by warning it could stall the growth of the Android ecosystem. It also said it would be forced to alter arrangements with more than 1,100 device manufacturers and thousands of app developers if the directives kick in. Google has been concerned about India’s decision as the steps are seen as more sweeping than those imposed in the European Commission’s 2018 ruling. There it was fined for putting in place what the Commission called unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google is still challenging the record $4.3 billion fine in that case. In Europe, Google made changes later, including letting Android device users pick their default search engine, and said device makers would be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser.

‍

Conclusion

As the world goes deeper into cyberspace, the big tech companies have more control over the industry and the markets, but the same should not turn into anarchy in the global markets. The Tech giants need to be made aware that compliance is the utmost duty for all companies, and enforcement of the law of the land will be maintained no matter what. Earlier India lacked policies and legislation to govern cyberspace, but in the recent proactive stance by the govt, a lot of new bills have been tabled, one of them being the Intermediary Rules 2021, which has laid down the obligations nand duties of the companies by setting up an intermediary in the country. Such bills coupled with such crucial judgments on tech giants will act as a test and barrier for other tech companies who try to flaunt the rules and avoid compliance.