iWorld
India’s ad watchdog cracks down on stealth marketing by media companies
MUMBAI: India’s advertising watchdog has tightened the screws on media companies that blur the lines between editorial content and paid promotions on social media. The Advertising Standards Council of India (Asci) has introduced tough new disclosure rules aimed at stopping advertisements masquerading as news.
Under the updated code, media outlets must now slap clear labels on any sponsored content right at the top of social media posts. Acceptable tags include “advertisement,” “partnership,” “ad,” “sponsored,” and “collaboration”—no hiding behind fine print or vague disclaimers.
The crackdown follows a surge in consumer complaints about misleading promotions on platforms where editorial credibility runs high. With digital media increasingly serving as Indians’ primary news source, regulators are worried that undisclosed advertising is eroding public trust.
“Several media outlets regularly post editorial content on their social media handles,” said Asci chief executive & secretary general Manisha Kapoor. “Increasingly, we see advertisements with no or poorly visible disclosures making their way to such posts.”
The new Clause 1.8, tucked into the “Truthful and Honest Representation” chapter of Asci’s self-regulation code, reflects growing global concern about native advertising and influencer marketing. Consumer protection authorities worldwide are grappling with how to police content that deliberately mimics editorial material.
For media companies, the rules represent both a burden and an opportunity. Clearer labelling may initially dent engagement rates, but could ultimately protect valuable editorial brands from advertiser influence. The regulations also level the playing field with international platforms, which already require similar disclosures under local laws.
Asci, established in 1985, monitors advertising across all media and has worked closely with government bodies including the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. The council’s updated code can be found at ascionline.in.
iWorld
OpenAI hits back at Elon Musk’s lawsuit ahead of trial
Company calls claims “baseless” and accuses Musk of trying to disrupt a rival.
MUMBAI: When the stakes are measured in billions and egos are involved, even Silicon Valley titans can turn a courtroom into a battlefield. OpenAI has issued a sharp public response to Elon Musk’s ongoing lawsuit, accusing the billionaire of filing the case to harass a competitor rather than address genuine concerns. In a strongly worded statement shared on its official X account, OpenAI described Musk’s allegations as “baseless” and suggested the lawsuit is an attempt to disrupt the company as the case heads toward trial later this month in Oakland, California.
The response comes after Musk’s legal team recently amended the complaint, proposing that any damages potentially exceeding $150 billion should go to OpenAI’s nonprofit entity rather than to Musk personally. OpenAI questioned the timing and motive behind this change, calling it a late-stage attempt to “pretend to change his tune” on the nonprofit structure.
The company further labelled the lawsuit a “harassment campaign”, arguing that Musk’s actions are driven by personal rivalry, ego, and a desire for greater control and financial upside.
At the heart of the dispute is Musk’s claim that OpenAI has abandoned its original nonprofit mission of developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. A co-founder who left in 2018, Musk is seeking governance changes, including the removal of CEO Sam Altman from the nonprofit board, and the return of certain financial gains linked to Altman and President Greg Brockman.
OpenAI has firmly rejected these allegations, maintaining that its current hybrid structure, a public-benefit corporation overseen by a nonprofit parent remains true to its long-term goals. The company has also previously accused Musk of anti-competitive behaviour aimed at weakening its leadership.
As the case prepares for a jury trial, this public exchange highlights the deepening rift between two of the most influential figures in the AI revolution and raises broader questions about governance, mission, and power in the fast-moving world of artificial intelligence.
In the high-stakes game of AI, it seems the real drama isn’t just inside the models, it’s playing out in courtrooms too.
