This is a special newsletter that contains highlights of significant stories from our reportage during December 2025.
Welcome to our special edition newsletter, ‘Questions to Consider’, dedicated to the important questions we think our audience should consider on the latest tech policy developments. This newsletter is designed to prompt reflection on issues ranging from platform power and copyright to online speech, labour, and digital infrastructure.
From this perspective, December 2025 marked a consequential close to the year, with courts, governments, and policymakers taking positions that are likely to shape India’s technology regulation in 2026. The month saw judicial scrutiny of AI-driven discovery systems, state-level moves to regulate online speech and identity, and an intensifying debate over how copyrighted works should be used to train AI systems.
Is forced consent becoming a policy? AI copyright licensing and NASSCOM’s dissent [Amit Singh]
The National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) has opposed the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) committee’s proposed hybrid model for AI copyright licensing, calling instead for a blanket text and data mining (TDM) exception. However, the government panel rejected this approach, favouring mandatory licensing with revenue sharing and no opt-out for creators.
The debate exposes a fundamental tension between innovation policy and creator autonomy.
Questions to consider:
- If the government adopts a mandatory licensing model with no opt-out, does it meaningfully reduce creators’ control over how their work is used, even if compensation is promised?
In practice, can consent be said to exist when creators have limited visibility into how their content is scraped, reused, or challenged by AI systems? - When AI training is described as “at most a technical infringement,” how should copyright law distinguish between background data processing and uses that clearly generate commercial value?
Also who gets to draw that boundary, and on what basis? - If access to copyrighted works can be mandated in the public interest, what checks exist to ensure this power is not exercised disproportionately against smaller or independent creators?
How are their interests weighed against those of large technology firms?
Who controls visibility on the AI-driven web? IndiaMART vs OpenAI [Aakriti Bansal]
IndiaMART InterMESH Limited has moved the Calcutta High Court against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT selectively excluded the company from AI-generated responses while surfacing rival business-to-business (B2B) marketplaces. When the matter was heard on December 24, the court held that IndiaMART had made out a strong prima facie case of selective discrimination, observing that the exclusion appeared to have occurred without any clear logic.
While the court declined to grant interim relief, it acknowledged that such…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
