MAM
India leads Mobile Ad Fraud across Asia with 62%: MMA’s Ad Fraud Benchmark Report
MUMBAI: Mobile Marketing Association, a global non-profit organization, today released an Ad Fraud Benchmark Report on the state of mobile ad fraud in India. The report revealed interesting facts about the level of fraud, and its awareness in the country and aims to help marketers benchmark their exposure to various kinds of fraud.
The report has been published in collaboration with a leading research firm Decision Lab, with the objective of understanding the current industry practices around ad fraud and the methods adopted by marketers. It also highlights the rising and prevalent issues such as adware traffic, ad stacking, domain spoofing, that will help marketers understand organizational challenges and combination of various measures to tackle the problems effectively.
Speaking on the launch, Moneka Khurana, Country Head, MMA India said, ?In India, the awareness on ad fraud risks is very low with almost a fifth of the marketers being unclear of their ad fraud budget and majority of them believing that fraudulent activities will only increase. Brand safety on mobile is the biggest concern today and this benchmark report clearly demonstrates that this needs immediate addressal. Marketers will need to be extra cautious to attacks such as ad injections, data fraud, cookie stuffing, etc. Marketers must understand the potential of technologies such as Blockchain that can help solve issues related to fraud and create security and transparency in mobile marketing ecosystem.
Key highlights from the report are:
· With a rate of 62 per cent, mobile ad fraud remains as one of the biggest challenges in India
· Indian marketers spend nearly 20 per cent of their advertising budget on ad fraud
· 9/10 marketers feel there is scope for improvement in ad fraud prevention methods
· 95 per cent respondents feel that lack of penalties and transparency in industry regulations give rise to ad fraud
· 95 per cent respondents agreed that lack of data sharing and large number of middlemen are also a cause to ad fraud risks
· Major types of ad fraud ? Cookie Stuffing (74 per cent), Adware Traffic (65 per cent), Data Fraud (61 per cent), Ad Injection (54 per cent)
· Only 37 per cent respondents are aware of Blockchain and its application to fraud prevention
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
