Google Play Enhancing Trust and Transparency

Introduction

‍

The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue. 

Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers

‍

In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”  serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach. 

This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector. 

Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle

‍

 In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported. 

The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.  

Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards. 

Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability. 

Conclusion

‍

The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced  the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof. 

It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper. 

‍

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html 
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case 

‍

Introduction

India's broadcasting sector has undergone significant changes in recent years with technological advancements such as the introduction of new platforms like Direct-to-Home (DTH), Internet Protocol television (IPTV), Over-The-Top (OTT), and integrated models. Platform changes, emerging technologies and advancements in the advertising space have all necessitated the need for new governing laws that take these developments into account. 

The Union Government and concerned ministry have realised there is a pressing need to develop a robust regulatory framework for the Indian broadcasting sector in the country and consequently, a draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, was released in November 2023 and the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had invited feedback and comments from different stakeholders. The draft Bill aims to establish a unified framework for regulating broadcasting services in the country, replacing the current Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and other policy guidelines governing broadcasting.

Recently a new draft of an updated ‘Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024,’ was shared with selected broadcasters, associations, streaming services, and tech firms, each marked with their identifier to prevent leaks. 

Key Highlights of the Updated Broadcasting Bill 

As per the recent draft of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024, social media accounts could be identified as ‘Digital News Broadcasters’ and can be classified within the ambit of the regulation. Some of the major aspects of the new bill were first reported by Hindustan Times. 

The new draft of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024, proposes that individuals who regularly upload videos to social media, make podcasts, or write about current affairs online could be classified as Digital News Broadcasters. This entails that YouTubers and Instagrammers who receive a share of advertising revenue or monetize their social media presence through affiliate activities will be regulated as Digital News Broadcasters. This includes channels, podcasts, and blogs that cover news and utilise Google AdSense. They must comply with a Programme Code and Advertising Code.

Online content creators who do not provide news or current affairs but provide programming and curated programs beyond a certain threshold will be treated as OTT broadcasters in case they provide content licensed or live through a website or social media platform.

The new version also introduces new obligations for intermediaries and social media intermediaries related to streaming services and digital news broadcasters, and, in contrast to the last version circulated in 2023, the latest also carries provisions targeting online advertising. In the context of streaming services, OTT broadcasting services are no longer a part of the definition of "internet broadcasting services." The definition of OTT broadcasting service has also been revised, allowing content creators who regularly upload their content to social media to be considered as OTT broadcasting services.

The new definition of an 'intermediary' includes social media intermediaries, advertisement intermediaries, internet service providers, online search engines, and online marketplaces. 

The new Bill allows the government to prescribe different due diligence guidelines for social media platforms and online advertisement intermediaries and requires all intermediaries to provide appropriate information, including information pertaining to the OTT broadcasters and Digital News Broadcasters on their platform, to the central government to ensure compliance with the act. This entails the liability provisions for social media intermediaries which do not provide information “pertaining to OTT Broadcasters and Digital News Broadcasters” on its platforms for compliance. This suggests that when information is sought about a YouTube, Instagram or X/Twitter user, the platform will need to provide this information to the Indian government.

A new draft bill contains specific provisions governing ‘Online Advertising’ and to do so it creates the category of 'advertising intermediaries'. These intermediaries enable the buying or selling of advertisement space on the internet or placing advertisements on online platforms without endorsing the advertisement. 

Final Words

The Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) is making efforts to propose robust regulatory changes to the country's new-age broadcast sector, which would cover the specific provisions for Digital News Broadcasters, OTT Broadcasters and Intermediaries. The proposed bill defining the scope and obligation of each. 

However, these changes will have significant implications for press and creative freedom. The changes in the new version of the updated bill from its previous draft expanded the applicability of the bill to a larger number of key actors, this move brought ‘content creators’ under the definition of OTT or digital news broadcasters, which raises concerns about overly rigid provisions and might face criticism from media representative perspectives. 

According to recent media reports, the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024 version has been withdrawn by the I&B ministry facing criticism from relevant stakeholders.

The ministry must take due consideration and feedback from concerned stakeholders and place reliance on balancing individual rights while promoting a healthy regulated landscape considering the needs of the new-age broadcasting sector.

References:

1. https://www.medianama.com/2024/07/223-india-broadcast-bill-online-creators/#:~:text=Online%20content%20creators%20that%20do,or%20a%20social%20media%20platform.
2. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-draft-of-broadcasting-bill-news-influencers-may-be-classified-as-broadcasters-101721961764666.html
3. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/broadcasting-bill-still-in-drafting-stage-mib-tells-rs-101722058753083.html
4. https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/07/29/indias-new-broadcast-bill-now-has-compliance-requirements-for-youtubers-and-instagrammers
5. https://m.thewire.in/article/media/social-media-videos-text-digital-news-broadcasting-bill
6. https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/Public%20Notice_07.12.2023.pdf
7. https://news.abplive.com/news/india/centre-withdraws-draft-of-broadcasting-services-regulation-bill-1709770

‍

Introduction

Targeting airlines and airports, airline hoax threats are fabricated alarms which intend to disrupt normal day-to-day activities and create panic among the public. Security of public settings is of utmost importance, making them a vulnerable target. The consequences of such threats include the financial loss incurred by parties concerned, increased security protocols to be followed immediately after and in preparation, flight delays and diversions, emergency landings and passenger inconvenience and emotional distress. The motivation behind such threats is malicious intent of varying degrees, breaching national security, integrity and safety. However, apart from the government, airline and social media authorities which already have certain measures in place to tackle such issues, the public, through responsible consumption and verified sharing has an equal role in preventing the spread of misinformation and panic regarding the same.

Hoax Airline Threats

The recent spate of bomb hoax threats to Indian airlines has witnessed false reports about threats to (over) 500 flights since 14/10/2024, the majority being traced to posts on social media handles which are either anonymous or unverified. Some recent incidents include a hoax threat on Air India's flights from Delhi to Mumbai via Indore which was posted on X, 30/10/2024 and a flight from Nepal (Kathmandu) to Delhi on November 2nd, 2024.

As per reports by the Indian Express, steps are being taken to address such incidents by tweaking the assessment criteria for threats (regarding bombs) and authorities such as the Bomb Threat Assessment Committees (BTAC) are being selective in categorising them as specific and non-specific. Some other consideration factors include whether a VIP is onboard and whether the threat has been posted from an anonymous account with a similar history. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

1. For Public 

• Question sensational information: The public should scrutinise the information they’re consuming not only to keep themselves safe but also to be responsible to other citizens. Exercise caution before sharing alarming messages, posts and pieces of information
• Recognising credible sources: Rely only on trustworthy, verified sources when sharing information, especially when it comes to topics as serious as airline safety.
• Avoiding Reactionary Sharing: Sharing in a state of panic can contribute to the chaos created upon receiving unverified news, hence,  it is suggested to refrain from reactionary sharing.

2. For the Authorities & Agencies

• After a series of hoax bomb threats, the Government of India has issued an advisory to social media platforms calling for them to make efforts for the removal of such malicious content. Adherence to obligations such as the prompt removal of harmful content or disabling access to such unlawful information has been specified under the IT Rules, 2021. They are also obligated under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 to report certain offences on their platform. The Ministry of Civil Aviation’s action plan consists of plans regarding hoax bomb threats being labelled as a cognisable offence, and attracting a no-flyers list as a penalty, among other things.

These plans also include steps such as :  

• Introduction of other corrective measures that are to be taken against bad actors (similar to having a non-flyers list).
• Introduction of a reporting mechanism which is specific to such threats.
• Focus on promoting awareness, digital literacy and critical thinking, fact-checking resources as well as encouraging the public to report such hoaxes

Conclusion

Preventing the spread of airline threat hoaxes is a collective responsibility which involves public engagement and ownership to strengthen safety measures and build upon the trust in the overall safety ecosystem (here; airline agencies, government authorities and the public). As the government and agencies take measures to prevent such instances, the public should continue to share information only from and on verified and trusted portals. It is encouraged that the public must remain vigilant and responsible while consuming and sharing information. 

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/business/flight-bomb-threats-assessment-criteria-serious-9646397/
• https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-airline-flight-bound-for-new-delhi-from-nepal-receives-hoax-bomb-threat-amid-rise-in-similar-incidents-772795
• https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Oct/26/centre-cautions-social-media-platforms-to-tackle-misinformation-after-hoax-bomb-threat-to-multiple-airlines
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/amid-rising-hoax-bomb-threats-to-indian-airlines-centre-issues-advisory-to-social-media-companies/articleshow/114624187.cms 

‍