Technology Law and Data Privacy Chronicles 2024

As the year ends, our edition highlights the year’s most pivotal developments that have reshaped the global legal and regulatory landscape. With groundbreaking rulings, transformative regulations, and the rapid rise of new technologies, courts and lawmakers worldwide have worked diligently to address the challenges of an ever-evolving digital environment.

In India, the judiciary reaffirmed fundamental rights through landmark decisions that strengthened privacy, free speech, and individual dignity. The Supreme Court and High Courts tackled issues ranging from data privacy and intermediary liability to the emerging ‘right to be forgotten’ and personality rights, setting precedents that resonate deeply in our digital age. On the regulatory front, India introduced robust measures for telecom security, fintech governance, and digital inclusion, reflecting its commitment to safeguarding critical infrastructure while fostering innovation.

Our Founder’s Comments –

“Given the critical nature of the DPDP Act, implementing the same with its Rules requires a fundamental shift in attitudes toward personal data, which hasn’t had a precedent to follow. Unlike the introduction of GST, which benefitted from existing tax systems, the DPDP Act’s success relies on building new institutions and ensuring their smooth operation.”

“Implementing the DPDP Act requires a fundamental shift in attitudes toward personal data which has not yet received sufficient attention in India. Unlike the introduction of GST which benefited from existing tax systems, the DPDP Act’s success relies on building new institutions and ensuring their smooth operation.”

– Legal World, The Economics Times (December 28, 2024)

Globally, 2024 witnessed unprecedented strides in regulating artificial intelligence and data privacy. The Council of Europe adopted the first legally binding treaty on AI, while the European Union and the United States enacted comprehensive laws addressing AI, digital markets, and online safety. Meanwhile, countries like China, Australia, and the United Kingdom strengthened their frameworks for data security, privacy, and AI accountability, creating ripple effects for businesses and consumers worldwide.

Key rulings across jurisdictions—from curbing anti-competitive practices and regulating cross-border data transfers to addressing AI-generated deepfakes—underscored the growing convergence between technology, human rights, and market fairness. At the same time, regulatory bodies such as the Competition Commission of India, Federal Trade Commission, and GDPR enforcers took bold actions to hold tech giants accountable, reinforcing the importance of ethical practices in a digital-first world.

As we reflect on this dynamic year, one overarching theme stands out: the balancing act between innovation, regulation, and rights. The events of 2024 highlight the global commitment to creating a fairer, safer, and more inclusive digital ecosystem while navigating the complexities of technological advancement.

Fountainhead Legal is dedicated to supporting organizations on this journey. With our deep expertise in data privacy compliance and a strong understanding of regulatory nuances, we provide tailored solutions for each client’s unique needs. From drafting privacy policies and building data protection frameworks to advising on cross-border data transfers and facilitating employee training programs, our team is equipped to guide clients through every step of their compliance strategy.

We hope you enjoy our year end chronicles!

NATIONAL

IMPORTANT RULINGS

1. Supreme Court on sharing Google Location of Accused as Condition for Bail[1]

The Supreme Court ruled that a bail condition requiring the accused to share their real-time location via Google Maps violated their right to privacy. The Court emphasized that bail conditions should be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and not infringe upon constitutional rights unnecessarily.

2. Bombay High Court on Intermediary Liability and Free Speech[2]

The petitioner challenged the 2023 amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which empowered a Government-appointed fact-checking unit to identify ‘fake, false, or misleading’ content related to Government business. Consequently, the amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) was struck down, reaffirming the importance of safeguarding freedom of speech and expression in the digital realm.

3. CCI imposes hefty fine on Meta under Anti-Trust Regulations[3]

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of INR 213.14 crores on Meta for WhatsApp’s updated 2021 terms, which mandated data sharing with Meta entities and eliminated user choice. The CCI found this violated user autonomy and competition laws, and directed WhatsApp to provide transparency, opt-out options, and restrict data sharing for advertising for 5 years.

4. Supreme Court Ruling on CSAM and Intermediary Responsibility[4]

The Supreme Court clarified that possession of Child Sexual Abuse Material (“CSAM”) is punishable under Section 15 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and that online intermediaries must remove such content promptly, as the ‘safe harbour’ provision does not apply in these cases.

5. Delhi HC Issues Warning to Wikipedia Over Defamatory Content Takedown[5]

The Delhi High Court cautioned Wikipedia for failing to comply with takedown orders for defamatory content, emphasizing intermediaries’ obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). The dispute centred around the disclosure of subscriber information for individuals accused of posting defamatory content about ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. on Wikipedia. Following a series of hearings, the Court approved a consent order, resolving the appeal and permitting the disclosure of subscriber details of the respondents, identified as the editors involved in the defamatory posts.

6. Bombay High Court rules out Defamation on Mere Receipt of WhatsApp Messages[6]

The Court clarified that recipients of WhatsApp messages are not liable for defamation unless they actively forward or publish the content. Highlighting the privacy afforded by end-to-end encryption, the Court ruled that a message only visible to the recipient, does not constitute defamation unless shared further.

7. Delhi High Court on the Right to Be Forgotten[7]

The Court recognized that public availability of case details, despite the petitioner’s acquittal, could cause irreparable harm to his privacy, career, and dignity. It directed the masking of the petitioner’s name and respondent details in all records and search results related to the case, aligning with the ‘right to be forgotten’. Additionally, search engines and social media platform were encouraged to adhere to these privacy principles and remove any relevant public material, reflecting a nuanced balance between individual dignity and the public’s right to information.

8. Judicial Recognition of Personality Rights in 2024

In a series of rulings in 2024, Indian courts emphasized the recognition and protection of personality rights, particularly for celebrities, highlighting their right to control and commercialize their identity. The Delhi High Court in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi [2024 Del HC 134] restrained the unauthorized use of Amitabh Bachchan’s name, image, and voice in a lottery advertisement, recognizing his exclusive rights over his personality attributes. Similarly, in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life, India & Ors. [2024 Del HC 185], the Court held that unauthorized exploitation of a celebrity’s persona violates their right to livelihood, dignity, and privacy. These rulings underscore that the misuse of a celebrity’s identity for commercial gain infringes their rights, even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions. The judgments collectively called for legislative action to codify the protection of personality rights, especially given the challenges posed by digital media and unauthorized exploitation online.

REGULATIONS

9. Telecommunications (Critical Telecommunication Infrastructure) Rules, 2024[8]

Issued by the Department of Telecommunications, these rules define the obligations of telecom entities for securing critical telecom infrastructure. They set compliance standards, establish reporting protocols, and outline penalties for non-compliance to safeguard national security.

Impact – Telecom operators and related vendors must prioritize security enhancements to critical infrastructure, resulting in increased operational expenditures but reduced risk of cyber threats. Enterprises reliant on telecom networks, like finance and healthcare, must ensure robust compliance with security standards to maintain uninterrupted operations.

10. Telecom Cyber Security Rules, 2024[9]

These rules provide a comprehensive cybersecurity framework for the telecom sector, addressing emerging threats and ensuring the integrity of networks and data. The focus is on risk management, incident reporting, and the mandatory implementation of security measures by telecom operators.

Impact – Organizations across the telecom sector must implement advanced cybersecurity measures and ensure rapid incident reporting, driving up compliance costs but reducing exposure to cyber threats. Cybersecurity providers stand to benefit from increased demand, while smaller enterprises may face indirect impacts from stricter requirements.

11. Guidelines for Fintech SRO[10]

The RBI issued these guidelines to establish a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) for the fintech sector. The guidelines mandate transparency, ethical practices, and consumer protection in the rapidly growing fintech ecosystem.

Impact – Fintech companies must align with transparency and ethical guidelines, incurring higher compliance costs while benefiting from increased consumer trust and regulatory clarity. Startups gain credibility within the framework, fostering growth and investment opportunities, while traditional banks face competition from a better-regulated fintech ecosystem.

12. Telecommunications (Administration of Digital Bharat Nidhi) Rules, 2024[11]

These rules aim to manage and utilize the Digital Bharat Nidhi (DBN) fund to enhance telecom infrastructure, promote digital inclusion, and support innovation in emerging technologies like 5G and IoT. The rules focus on bridging the digital divide, providing affordable telecom services, fostering public-private partnerships, and ensuring transparent fund allocation, all aligned with India’s vision for a digitally empowered society and the goals of the National Digital Communications Policy.

INTERNATIONAL

GLOBAL TREATIES, CONVENTIONS

13. Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence[12]

In September 2024, the Council of Europe introduced the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law—the first legally binding international treaty on AI. This convention mandates that AI systems adhere to principles safeguarding human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Signatories, including the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, and others, are required to implement legislative and administrative measures to ensure compliance.

14. Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework[13]

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development introduced the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (“CARF”) to enhance tax transparency concerning crypto-assets. CARF mandates that Crypto-Asset Service Providers collect and report information on users’ tax residences and taxpayer identification numbers to their domestic tax authorities. This information is then exchanged between jurisdictions to combat tax evasion and ensure compliance. The European Union has adopted CARF, with implementation set for January 1, 2026[14].

15. AI Seoul Summit and Frontier AI Safety Commitments[15]

In May 2024, during the AI Seoul Summit, 16 global AI technology companies agreed to safety commitments concerning the development of AI. These commitments aim to ensure the responsible and ethical advancement of AI technologies, emphasizing safety, transparency, and collaboration among industry leaders.

EUROPEAN UNION

NEW LEGISLATIONS

16. EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act)[16]

Enacted in August 2024[17], the AI Act established a risk-based regulatory framework for AI systems, categorizing them into minimal, limited, high, and unacceptable risk levels. High-risk systems are subject to strict data protection and transparency requirements. It also prohibits certain AI practices like real-time biometric identification in public spaces and social scoring by governments.

Impact on Businesses – AI Act imposes stringent compliance requirements, particularly for high-risk AI systems, necessitating significant investments in transparency, risk management, and technical safeguards. However, its phased enforcement provides flexibility, allowing businesses time to adapt while fostering a predictable legal framework that builds trust and encourages innovation.

17. Digital Services Act (DSA) Implementation[18]

The DSA, operational from February 2024, introduced stricter obligations for online platforms regarding content moderation, transparency, and accountability, including managing AI-driven algorithms and user data protection.

Impact on Businesses – DSA imposes strict requirements on online businesses, particularly large platforms. Companies will need to enhance their content moderation systems, ensure greater transparency in their operations, and comply with tighter data protection rules. Businesses will face challenges in managing AI-driven algorithms for content removal, providing transparency reports, and implementing systems to protect users from harmful content, including minors. The DSA’s phased rollout gives businesses time to adapt, but it still increases the operational burden, especially for platforms with large user bases, as they must also conduct regular risk assessments and audits to avoid penalties for non-compliance.

18. Digital Markets Act (DMA) Enforcement[19]

As of July 2024, the DMA began targeting ‘gatekeepers’ (large tech companies), ensuring fair data-sharing practices and compliance with data protection regulations, particularly impacting cross-platform AI applications.

Impact on Businesses – DMA aims to curb the power of gatekeepers by enforcing rules that prevent anti-competitive practices such as self-preferencing and unfair data-sharing. It promotes a level playing field, encouraging innovation and allowing smaller businesses to compete more effectively in the digital realm. For businesses, this means greater opportunities in a more transparent market, but it also requires compliance with new rules, potentially altering business models, especially in areas like data sharing, platform interoperability, and advertising practices.

19. Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessments for AI Systems[20]

Issued by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) in December 2024, these guidelines formalized processes under GDPR for assessing privacy risks of AI systems.

Impact on Businesses – Businesses are required to perform detailed risk assessments, especially for AI models that process sensitive data or pose high risks to individuals’ privacy. This increases the compliance burden on organizations, ensuring that AI systems prioritize data protection by design, and promoting greater transparency and accountability in their use.

IMPORTANT RULINGS

20. CJEU Judgment on Commercial Interest as Legitimate Basis for Data Processing[21]

In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled that ‘legitimate interest’ under GDPR Article 6 could justify processing personal data for commercial interest on a case-to-case basis, provided it adheres to data minimization principles and respects the reasonable expectations of the data subjects.

21. CJEU Ruling on Competitors’ Right to Seek Injunctions for GDPR Violations[22]

CJEU ruled that competitors are entitled to bring injunction claims based on GDPR infringements under national unfair competition laws. This decision underscores the interplay between data protection and competition law, allowing businesses to hold competitors accountable for data protection violations.

22. Dutch Data Protection Authority vs. Clearview AI[23]

In May 2024, the Dutch regulator fined Clearview AI €30.5 million for GDPR violations, specifically for creating a facial recognition database without legal consent.

23. CJEU Decision on Cross-Border Data Transfers Post-Schrems II[24]

The CJEU reaffirmed its stance on adequacy standards for cross-border data transfers, further clarifying the obligations of organizations using Standard Contractual Clauses for data sharing.

24. French CNIL Fine on Violation of Principal of Data Minimization[25]

The French privacy authority (CNIL) fined a major e-commerce company €32 million in January 2024 for implementing overly intrusive employee monitoring systems in its warehouses.

25. CJEU Ruling on Meta’s Use of Sensitive Data for Targeted Advertising[26]

In October 2024, the CJEU ruled that Meta cannot use users’ sensitive personal data, such as sexual orientation, for targeted advertising without explicit consent, even if the information is publicly available. This decision reinforces the stringent requirements for processing sensitive data under the GDPR.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NEW LEGISLATIONS

26. States Take Legislative Action on AI and Data Privacy

California introduced 5 laws targeting AI-generated deepfakes[27] in elections and protecting performers’ digital likenesses, with strict rules for reporting and removal of deceptive content. Montana, along with other States, enacted comprehensive privacy laws granting data access and deletion rights. These efforts highlight growing State-level actions to regulate AI and safeguard privacy[28].

27. Utah’s Artificial Intelligence Policy Act[29]

Signed into law in March 2024, this act establishes liability for companies failing to disclose their use of generative AI when required and creates the ‘Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy’ to oversee AI-related matters within the State.

28. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act[30]

Enacted in March 2024, the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, 2024 (“ELVIS Act”) addresses the unauthorized use of an individual’s voice and likeness through AI technologies, marking one of the first state-level legislations targeting AI-generated impersonations.

29. Intimate Privacy Protection Act Proposal[31]

In July 2024, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced the Intimate Privacy Protection Act, aiming to amend Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. This proposed legislation seeks to hold tech companies accountable for failing to remove intimate AI-generated deepfakes and related harmful content. It mandates that online platforms establish reasonable processes to address and remove such content within 24 hours of reporting.

IMPORTANT RULINGS

30. Supreme Court’s Overturning of the Chevron Doctrine[32]

In 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine, which previously required judicial deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This decision has significant implications for agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in regulating data privacy and AI practices.

31. Illinois Supreme Court’s Policy on AI Use in Legal Proceedings[33]

In December 2024, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a policy allowing judges and attorneys to use artificial intelligence tools in their work under certain conditions. This policy underscores the growing integration of AI in the legal system while emphasizing the need for ethical considerations and limitations.

32. AI-Related Copyright Lawsuits[34]

Throughout 2024, numerous lawsuits were filed concerning the use of copyrighted materials in training AI models. These cases involve authors, artists, and media companies challenging AI developers over alleged intellectual property infringements.

33. FTC Enforcement Actions[35]

The FTC took action against several businesses for issues including data breaches[36], unfair and deceptive disclosures related to the sharing of health data, failure to obtain parental consent for collecting children’s data, and the use of dark patterns concerning children’s privacy.

REST OF THE WORLD

LEGISLATIONS

34. Australia: Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024[37]

Introduced in October 2024, this bill strengthens privacy protections by requiring organizations to disclose their use of automated decision-making processes and tightening rules around cross-border data transfers. It focuses on transparency in AI and automated systems, ensuring compliance with privacy principles.

35. United Kingdom: Online Safety Act[38]

Enacted in 2024, this legislation introduces criminal penalties for creating and distributing AI-generated explicit content (deepfake pornography) without consent. The act is part of a broader initiative to enhance online safety and combat the misuse of AI technologies.

36. China: Network Data Security Management Regulations[39]

China’s Network Data Security Management Regulations, released on September 30, 2024, and effective January 1, 2025, establish stringent rules for data processing activities within China, impacting both domestic and international entities handling Chinese data. The regulations mandate enhanced data security measures, stricter controls on cross-border data transfers, and rigorous personal information protection protocols, particularly for data that may affect Chinese citizens or national security.

Impact for Businesses- For Indian and other international businesses operating in or with China, these rules necessitate robust compliance strategies, including significant upgrades to data management systems, adherence to lawful data export procedures, and proactive risk management to avoid severe penalties such as fines or operational restrictions. These measures are expected to increase operational costs and necessitate careful legal and infrastructural adjustments, particularly for multinational companies relying on seamless data flows. Overall, the regulations underscore the need for businesses to integrate these requirements into their operations to maintain market access and avoid disruptions in the Chinese market.

IMPORTANT RULINGS

37. Australia’s Legal Profession and AI Disclosure Requirements[40]

In May 2024, the Supreme Court of Victoria issued comprehensive guidelines on the use of AI in legal proceedings, requiring lawyers to disclose any AI assistance in forming arguments or drafting documents. The guidelines emphasize that AI usage must not mislead other participants and that practitioners need to understand the tools and their limitations. Additionally, those signing court documents remain responsible for their accuracy, even if AI assisted in their preparation. This move reflects a broader trend in the Australian legal system to ensure transparency and maintain the integrity of legal processes amid increasing AI integration.

Authors:

Rashmi Deshpande
Aarushi Ghai

[1] Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Bureau of India [2024 7 S.C.R. 97]
[2] Kunal Kamra v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 9792 of 2023]
[3] In re: Updated Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for WhatsApp users [Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2021]
[4] Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161-2162 of 2024]
[5] ANI Media Pvt Ltd. v. Wikimedia Foundation (FAO(OS) 146/2024)
[6] Ashwinkumar Pandhari Sanap v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 2908 of 2024]
[7] ABC v. State and Others [Crl. M.C. 495/2019]
[8] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DdQSaiReIk5Cn1KRuNYGuguFOiP9rIow/view?ref=static.internetfreedom.in
[9] https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Telecommunications%20%28Telecom%20Cyber%20Security%29%20Rules%2C%202024.pdf?download=1
[10] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=12636&Mode=0
[11] https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Gazette%20Notification%20Telecommunications%20%28Administration%20of%20Digital%20Bharat%20Nidhi%29%20Rules%2C%202024.pdf
[12] https://rm.coe.int/1680afae3c
[13] https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/international-standards-on-tax-transparency.html
[14] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202302226
[15] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/frontier-ai-safety-commitments-ai-seoul-summit-2024/frontier-ai-safety-commitments-ai-seoul-summit-2024
[16] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1689
[17] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_4123
[18] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32022R2065&utm
[19] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj/eng?utm
[20] https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-12/edpb_opinion_202428_ai-models_en.pdf
[21] Koninklijke Nederlandse Lawn Tennisbond v. Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (C-621/222)
[22] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62023CJ0021
[23] https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2024/dutch-supervisory-authority-imposes-fine-clearview-because-illegal-data_en?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[24] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=228677&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9743976
[25] https://www.cnil.fr/en/employee-monitoring-cnil-fined-amazon-france-logistique-eu32-million
[26] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=5CE53D5E3FCC1ABA77F2ACD5AAC2F038?text=&docid=290674&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1306139
[27] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2655 ; https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2839
; https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2355
[28] https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0384.pdf
[29] https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/SB0149.html
[30] https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/113/pub/pc0588.pdf
[31] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9187
[32] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
[33] https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf
[34] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68892274/the-center-for-investigative-reporting-inc-v-openai-inc/
[35] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/ftc-investigation-leads-lawsuit-against-tiktok-bytedance-flagrantly-violating-childrens-privacy-law
[36] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/ftc-takes-action-against-marriott-starwood-over-multiple-data-breaches
[37] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7249&utm
[38] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50
[39] https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/202409/content_6977766.htm
[40] https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/forms-fees-and-services/forms-templates-and-guidelines/guideline-responsible-use-of-ai-in-litigation?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Living Wills & Advance Medical Directives

At Fountainhead Legal, we understand that conversations about end-of-life care are deeply personal and often difficult. A Living Will or Advance Medical Directive allows you to express your healthcare choices in advance, giving you peace of mind that your wishes will be respected even if you are unable to communicate them later. By putting your preferences in writing, you also spare your loved ones from the emotional burden of making tough decisions in moments of crisis.

Our team works closely with you to make the process simple and reassuring. We help you draft and formalize your Living Will, guide you through the legal requirements, and ensure that your directive can be safely stored and accessed when needed. We also support families, hospitals, and custodians in understanding their roles, so that your voice is heard clearly and compassionately at every step.

For a confidential consultation on creating your Living Will, you may reach out to Rashmi Deshpande at rashmi@fountainheadlegal.com or Dr. G. U. Deshpande at gudeshpande3@gmail.com.

Litigation Management

Fountainhead Legal has a robust litigation management practice, representing clients before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), civilcourts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court of India. The firm specializes in devising litigation strategies, managing legal proceedings, and engaging the right legal counsel, including advocates and senior advocates, to ensure effective representation.

The firm plays a critical role in end-to-end litigation management, overseeing case strategy, drafting, filings, and court proceedings, while collaborating with leading litigators to drive favorable outcomes for its clients. Its expertise spans complex disputes in indirect taxation, regulatory compliance, corporate and commercial litigation, and constitutional matters.

Fountainhead Legal also has extensive experience in arbitration and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), handling institutional and ad-hoc arbitrations. Whether dealing with contractual disputes, shareholder conflicts, or cross-border transactions, the firm strategically manages arbitration proceedings, ensuring efficiency and business continuity.

Technology Law and Data Privacy

The firm has a strong focus on technology law and data privacy, offering end-to-end legal support under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its allied Rules, the data privacy regulations including GDPR. It advises clients on a wide range of issues, including data lifecycle management, intermediary liability, cross-border data flows, cybersecurity obligations, and compliance with sector-specific data protection requirements.

Building on this foundation, the firm assists clients in developing and implementing robust internal policies and frameworks that ensure compliance with the IT Act, its Rules (including the SPDI and CERT-In Directions), and leading global data privacy regulations. This includes conducting detailed assessments of data collection, processing, storage, and retention practices; drafting privacy policies, consent frameworks, and vendor agreements; and establishing internal protocols for incident response, breach notification, and data subject rights. The firm also provides tailored training to personnel to embed a culture of compliance and accountability.

The firm has a strong track record in representing clients in litigation and regulatory proceedings arising under the IT regulations. Its experience includes responding to take down notices, handling intermediary liability claims, assisting in proceedings involving cybercrimes, and advising on compliance with CERT-In investigations and reporting obligations.

Technology Law and Data Privacy Chronicles 2024

Technology Law and Data Privacy Chronicles 2024

About Us

Latest Articles

Quick Links

Social

Technology Law and Data Privacy Chronicles 2024

Technology Law and Data Privacy Chronicles 2024

Disclaimer