Supreme Courtroom Rejects Gaming Corporations’ Pleas And Upholds Tamil Nadu and Karnataka On-line Gaming Ban
The Supreme Courtroom of India has dismissed a batch of ten evaluate petitions led by Junglee Video games India difficult the Courtroom’s earlier Might 2026 judgment that upheld the constitutional validity of state legal guidelines banning real-money on-line video games in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Analyzing the filings in chambers with out an open-court listening to, the Bench noticed that it had rigorously gone by the evaluate petitions and linked papers and located no benefit or adequate grounds to revisit its earlier verdict.
Earlier, the Madras Excessive Courtroom and the Karnataka Excessive Courtroom had struck down their respective state legislations on the bottom that video games of ability couldn’t be subjected to blanket prohibitions, a view that the Supreme Courtroom subsequently overturned in Might by ruling that classifying a recreation as skill-based doesn’t place it exterior a state’s legislative energy to ban it when wagering or financial stakes are concerned. With the dismissal of the evaluate petitions, the authorized basis for the state restrictions on real-money on-line video games, together with on-line rummy and poker performed for stakes, stays undisturbed.
You may learn extra about it right here.
Bombay Excessive Courtroom Rejects Meta’s Plea to Shift Blink Digital’s ₹1,000-Crore Go well with to California
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom dismissed an utility filed by Meta Platforms Inc. in search of to switch a ₹1,000-crore business swimsuit filed by digital company Blink Digital to courts in California, whereas noting that Meta’s Indian subsidiary, Fb India On-line Providers Pvt. Ltd., has an workplace throughout the Courtroom’s territorial jurisdiction and had raised no objection to it.
The dispute arose in August 2026 after Meta disabled 4 of Blink Digital’s enterprise supervisor accounts together with roughly 9,000 related promoting accounts, prompting the company to strategy the Excessive Courtroom alleging violations of the Data Expertise (Middleman Pointers and Digital Media Ethics Code) Guidelines, 2021. Rejecting Meta’s rivalry concerning unique international jurisdiction, the Courtroom noticed {that a} personal contract between events in regards to the applicability of international legislation and unique courtroom jurisdiction can’t override necessary statutory provisions in India, nor can vital social media intermediaries profit from Indian operations whereas avoiding obligations underneath Indian legislation.
You may learn extra about it right here.
Ajay Devgn Strikes Bombay Excessive Courtroom In opposition to Maharashtra FDA Discover Over ‘Vimal Elaichi’ Advert
Bollywood actor Ajay Devgn has approached the Bombay Excessive Courtroom difficult a show-cause discover issued to him on August 11, 2026, by the Maharashtra Meals and Drug Administration (FDA) over his look in ads for the mouth freshener ‘Vimal Elaichi’. Invoking Sections 24 and 53 of the Meals Security and Requirements Act, 2006, which govern deceptive meals ads and prescribe penalties of as much as ₹10 lakh, the FDA alleged that the marketing campaign amounted to surrogate promotion of ‘Vimal Pan Masala’ and gutkha, that are prohibited in Maharashtra.
In his petition, which is slated to be heard by a division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna on November 4, Devgn has challenged the constitutionality of the FDA’s regulatory motion, contending that he solely endorsed the mouth freshener reasonably than pan masala, that he’s not related to the model, and that the discover was arbitrarily served straight on him as an actor reasonably than on the manufacturing firm. In the meantime, FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe said that the division had concluded its preliminary inquiry in opposition to Devgn, Shah Rukh Khan, and Tiger Shroff.
You may learn extra about it right here.
Bombay Excessive Courtroom Orders Takedown of Disparaging Video Claiming Bisleri Makes use of Drain and Bathroom Water
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom granted an interim injunction in favour of Bisleri Worldwide Personal Restricted in opposition to Meta Platforms Inc. and several other different defendants over the circulation of a social media video falsely alleging that Bisleri’s packaged ingesting water is manufactured from filtered drain and bathroom wastewater. Bisleri submitted that it holds a sound FSSAI central licence till Might 2028 with often audited amenities, and clarified that an inside enquiry established that the manufacturing premises depicted within the video didn’t belong to the corporate or any of its licensees, franchisees, or co-packers.
Observing that the video was prima facie disparaging, denigrating, and plainly malicious, the Courtroom famous that the explicit allegations created a misunderstanding that the plaintiff was promoting non-potable water to unsuspecting customers, which may trigger irreversible harm to its goodwill and fame. Accordingly, the Courtroom directed the removing of the impugned posts throughout social media platforms, restrained the defendants from repeating the allegations, and granted a dynamic injunction permitting Bisleri to inform platforms of mirrored or reposted hyperlinks with out approaching the Courtroom once more.
Case Title: Bisleri Worldwide Personal Restricted v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors.
Case No.: Interim Software (L) No. 37662 of 2026 in Go well with (L) No. 37659 of 2026
You may learn extra about it right here.
Calcutta Excessive Courtroom Halts Streaming of Sabeer Bhatia’s Video ‘How Modi and Adani Stole India’
The Calcutta Excessive Courtroom issued an interim order directing social media platforms together with YouTube, X, and Instagram to dam entry to a video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India – The Friendship Recordsdata” in a civil defamation swimsuit filed by Adani Enterprises Restricted in opposition to entrepreneur and content material creator Sabeer Bhatia. The petitioner contended that the video made unsubstantiated factual assertions linking the company group to narcotics smuggling for terror funding and orchestrating police violence in opposition to a farmer, and that shortened clips and re-uploads continued to flow into on-line even after the unique video was disabled in India underneath Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Guidelines, 2021.
Putting the matter in an distinctive class warranting a pre-trial injunction, the Courtroom noticed that the video was a dramatised narrative presenting extreme felony allegations as assertions of truth reasonably than expressions of opinion, with none supporting discovering from any authority. Whereas clarifying that the order doesn’t bar constructive criticism or evidence-backed reporting on the petitioner or authorities coverage, the Courtroom held that instant restraint was essential as speedy on-line republication causes reputational harm that can not be adequately compensated in cash.
You may learn extra about it right here.
TRAI’s Proposed Web TV Guidelines Set off Considerations Over Jurisdiction and Wider OTT Regulation
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) suggestions issued on October 26 proposing an authorisation framework for Software-based Linear Tv Distribution (ALTD) providers, together with Free Advert-Supported Streaming Tv (FAST) platforms, have raised considerations amongst trade stakeholders concerning regulatory overreach into the open web. Following a December 2025 reference from the Ministry of Data and Broadcasting (MIB) aimed toward addressing regulatory disparities between conventional tv operators and internet-based linear channel distributors, TRAI really useful requiring ALTD suppliers to acquire Central authorities authorisation and mandating good TV and working system verification.
Nevertheless, trade our bodies and stakeholders similar to JioStar have questioned TRAI’s statutory jurisdiction underneath the TRAI Act, 1997, and the Telecommunications Act, 2023, declaring that application-layer providers don’t function underlying transmission infrastructure or spectrum and that OTT providers have been consciously excluded from the 2023 Act throughout its drafting stage. Stakeholders additional cautioned that digital platforms are already ruled underneath the Data Expertise Act, 2000, and the 2021 IT Guidelines, warning that regulating internet-distributed linear channels may set a precedent for backdoor sector-specific regulation of broader on-demand OTT content material providers.
You may learn extra about it right here.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Restrains Jabsons Meals From Utilizing ‘HOT MIX’ Mark in Trademark Dispute With Shah Namkeen
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom, in Sunit Shah v. Jabsons Meals Pvt. Ltd., 2026:DHC:9547, has restrained Jabsons Meals from utilizing the mark ‘HOT MIX’ for namkeen, snacks and allied merchandise, upholding an interim injunction in favour of Shah Namkeen, which claimed use of the ‘SHAH HOT MIX’ label since 1977. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that Jabsons couldn’t keep away from infringement merely by including its home mark ‘JABSONS’ or altering its packaging, because it had reproduced the dominant function ‘HOT MIX’ of the plaintiff’s registered label for similar items. Rejecting Jabsons’ rivalry that ‘HOT MIX’ was descriptive or generally used within the commerce, the Courtroom noticed that pictures of some third-party merchandise, with out proof of considerable market use, have been inadequate to determine that the expression had change into widespread to the commerce. Making use of the creativeness take a look at and opponents’ want take a look at, the Courtroom thought of ‘HOT MIX’ a suggestive expression reasonably than a purely descriptive one and famous that Jabsons had adopted the mark solely in October 2023, regardless of promoting different namkeen variants for over 15 years. It additionally emphasised that unusual customers buying cheap, on a regular basis merchandise similar to namkeen are prone to establish them by identify, making the probability of confusion notably related. Accordingly, the Courtroom allowed Shah’s utility underneath Order XXXIX Guidelines 1 and a pair of CPC and dismissed Jabsons’ utility underneath Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, persevering with the injunction in opposition to use of ‘HOT MIX’ or any deceptively comparable mark, whereas clarifying that the person phrases ‘sizzling’ and ‘combine’ should be used independently of their unusual descriptive sense. The Courtroom clarified that its observations have been prima facie and wouldn’t prejudice the ultimate adjudication of the swimsuit.