India Disputes X’s Claims of Censorship, Says It Didn’t Order Reuters Block

New Delhi: The Indian government has refuted claims made by X (formerly Twitter) regarding the blocking of accounts, including those of international news agency Reuters, asserting it did not issue any fresh orders to block prominent international news channels. The clarification comes after X’s Global Government Affairs team publicly stated it was ordered to block 2,355 accounts in India on July 3rd, 2025, under Section 69A of the IT Act, including @Reuters and @ReutersWorld.

According to a statement released by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (meity), the government instantly requested X to unblock the Reuters accounts as soon as the suspension was noticed in India. “The Government has not issued any fresh blocking order on 3rd july, 2025 and has no intention to block any prominent international news channels including Reuters and Reuters World,” the statement read.

The MeitY placed the responsibility for the prolonged suspension on X itself, accusing the platform of “unnecessarily exploit[ing] technicalities” and delaying the unblocking process despite repeated requests. “X has unnecessarily exploited technicalities involved in the process and did not unblock the URLs. Though, after lot of follow up on hourly basis, X has finally unblocked Reuters and other URLs after 9 pm on 6th July 2025. They took more than 21 hours to unblock Reuters,” the ministry stated.

X had claimed the government demanded immediate action – within one hour – without justification and required the accounts to remain blocked indefinitely. The platform expressed “deep concern about ongoing press censorship in India” and stated it was exploring legal options, acknowledging its limited ability to challenge executive orders under Indian law. X urged affected users to seek legal remedies through the courts.

the accounts of Reuters, Turkish broadcaster TRT World, and China’s global Times were restored in India on the evening of July 6th after users reported access being restricted with a message stating the accounts had been “withheld” in response to a legal demand.

An official government spokesperson reiterated that there was no directive from the Indian government to withhold the reuters handle, stating, “We are continuously working with X to resolve the problem.”

The incident follows allegations that Reuters published articles favoring Pakistan following Operation Sindoor, leading to accusations of biased reporting. However, the government’s statement focuses solely on clarifying its position regarding the blocking orders and X’s handling of the situation.

What specific legal loopholes did NovaTech allegedly exploit to bypass media restrictions?

Authorities Accuse tech Firm of Using Loopholes to Evade Media Restrictions

The Allegations: Circumventing Regulations

On July 8, 2025, regulatory bodies across multiple jurisdictions announced formal accusations against NovaTech Solutions, a leading technology firm specializing in social media management and content distribution. The core allegation centers around NovaTech allegedly exploiting legal loopholes to bypass established media restrictions, specifically those concerning political advertising transparency and content moderation policies.these restrictions, designed to protect democratic processes and prevent the spread of misinformation, are now under scrutiny due to NovaTech’s reported practices.

The accusations stem from a six-month examination initiated following complaints from several media watchdog groups. initial findings suggest NovaTech facilitated the dissemination of politically sensitive content through a network of shell companies and obscured advertising origins, effectively circumventing disclosure requirements. This practice raises concerns about political ad spending, election interference, and the integrity of online facts.

How the Loopholes Were Allegedly Exploited

NovaTech is accused of utilizing several key strategies to evade media restrictions:

Shell Company Network: Establishing a complex web of offshore shell companies to purchase and distribute political advertisements, masking the true source of funding. This makes tracing the origin of the ads significantly more difficult.

Micro-Targeting & Data Privacy: Leveraging advanced data analytics and micro-targeting techniques to deliver highly specific political messages to vulnerable demographics, perhaps exploiting data privacy vulnerabilities. This relates to concerns around targeted advertising and user data protection.

Content Moderation Bypass: Employing automated systems and human moderators to subtly alter content to avoid triggering content moderation filters on various social media platforms. This allowed potentially harmful or misleading information to remain online.

Influencer Marketing Obfuscation: Utilizing a network of undisclosed influencers to promote political messaging, blurring the lines between organic content and paid advertising. This falls under scrutiny regarding influencer transparency and disclosure requirements.

The Regulatory Response & Potential Penalties

Authorities, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) enforcement team, are taking a firm stance. Potential penalties for NovaTech could be substantial, including:

1. Notable Fines: Fines reaching into the billions of dollars, based on the scale of the alleged violations and revenue generated through the circumvention tactics.
2. Operational restrictions: Limitations on NovaTech’s ability to operate within specific jurisdictions, potentially impacting thier core business model.
3. Mandatory Audits: Requirements for self-reliant audits of NovaTech’s advertising practices and content moderation policies to ensure future compliance.
4. Legal Action: Potential criminal charges against key executives involved in the alleged scheme.

The DSA, in particular, is expected to play a crucial role, given it’s focus on platform accountability and transparency. The investigation highlights the challenges of enforcing digital regulations in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

The Impact on the Tech Industry & Digital Advertising

This case has sent ripples throughout the tech industry, prompting a re-evaluation of advertising practices and content moderation strategies. Other tech firms are now facing increased scrutiny regarding their own compliance with media restrictions.

Increased Regulatory Pressure: Expect heightened regulatory oversight of digital advertising and content distribution platforms.

Demand for Transparency: Growing public demand for greater transparency in political advertising and online content.

Investment in Compliance: Tech companies are likely to increase investment in compliance programs and technologies to avoid similar accusations.

Shift in Advertising Strategies: A potential shift away from highly targeted advertising towards more broadly focused campaigns.

Case study: Similar Past Violations – Cambridge Analytica

The NovaTech accusations bear striking similarities to the Cambridge Analytica scandal of 2018. In that case, data firm Cambridge Analytica harvested data from millions of Facebook users without their consent and used it for political advertising purposes. The scandal led to significant public backlash, regulatory investigations, and ultimately, the collapse of Cambridge Analytica. This precedent underscores the severity of the potential consequences for NovaTech. Both cases highlight the vulnerabilities within the digital marketing ecosystem and the need for robust data protection measures.

Practical Tips for Businesses Navigating Media Restrictions

For businesses involved in digital advertising, especially those engaging in political or sensitive topics, here are some practical steps to ensure compliance:

*