The Competition Commission of India fined Meta Rs. 213.14 crore for abusing its market dominance related to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy, which forced users to accept new data-sharing terms. The CCI issued cease-and-desist orders, requiring changes to data handling practices, including opt-out options and transparency in data sharing.
The Supreme Court dismissed SEBI’s appeal against the SAT ruling that cleared Mukesh Ambani of penalties for the 2007 Reliance Petroleum stock manipulation case, citing no question of law. However, the Court will hear SEBI’s appeal regarding SAT’s relief to RIL on December 2, 2023. Senior advocates represented both parties.
![[Defamation Case] Mumbai Court Issued Non-Bailable Warrant Against BJP's Nitesh Rane in Sanjay Raut case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-37-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
A Mumbai magistrate court issued a non-bailable warrant against BJP MLA Nitesh Rane after he repeatedly failed to appear in a defamation case filed by Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut. The case originated from Rane’s alleged defamation of Raut in May 2022. Despite previous warrants and penalties, Rane’s absence led to the recent warrant issuance.
Airbnb and host fined Rs.10,000 for injuring infant in cleaning mishap. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found Airbnb and caretaker negligent. Despite apologies, commission ruled in favor of complainant, ordering Rs. 5,000 compensation and Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs. Incident underscores need for safety measures in short-term rentals.
Monday(on 22nd April),The West Bengal State Consumer Commission fined a retailer Rs.30,000 for selling counterfeit whey protein on Flipkart and ordered a Rs.6,524 refund to the buyer. The retailer failed to contest the claim, and evidence clearly established the sale of a counterfeit product. This ruling emphasizes the importance of prioritizing product authenticity and consumer rights in e-commerce.
![[Breaking] Enrolment Fees for Lawyers Cannot Exceed Rs. 600: Supreme Court Mandates For All State Bar Council](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WhatsApp-Image-2024-01-27-at-3.05.14-PM.jpeg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court has intervened in a disciplinary matter involving the Bar Council of India, staying the imposition of a Rs. 50,000 penalty on an advocate. While not interfering with the dismissal of the complaint, the court’s decision reflects a balancing act between professional standards and ensuring disciplinary measures are not excessively punitive. The case highlights the complexity of legal ethics and the need for judicious exercise of disciplinary powers.
