This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
That all intermediaries shall be obligated to ensure compliance by users of their rules, regulations, privacy policy, user agreement, etc. That all intermediaries shall ensure accessibility to its services and maintain reasonable expectations of duediligence, privacy and transparency. Amit Kotak & Ors.
In the first part, we summarized the proposed amendments and specifically delved into the proposed amendments to Rule 3(1)(a) and (b), arguing that it goes against the Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) as well as the judicially developed principles of intermediary liability and obligations in Shreya Singhal , Kent RO v.
Information Technology Act,2000. The Information Technology Act of 2000 [hereinafter referred to as the “IT Act”] regulates the intermediaries or Internet Service Providers (ISPs) involved. Safe Harbour Principle ( Section 79 of IT Act,2000).
4] SOLUTION IP audit and duediligence can help identify the IP rights and obligations of the parties involved, as well as the potential IP threats and opportunities. This Act bears resemblance to the GDPR [9] , acknowledged as the most stringent security and privacy law globally. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India). [1]
Zydus Healthcare Limited vs Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd & Ors on 25 A p ril, 2024 (Delhi High Court) In addition to the directions in the March 5, 2024 order, Flipkart submitted a compliance affidavit disclosing steps of duediligence undertaken by it as an e-commerce marketplace.
Other legislations include the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Prize Competition Act, 1955. It also introduces a duediligence process under Rule 3 and 4 which the Online Gaming Industry has to comply to. Criminal Laws Various criminal laws like Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, IT Act, 2000, etc.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content