#FactCheck: Viral video claims BSF personnel thrashing a person selling Bangladesh National Flag in West Bengal

Smart Wearable devices are designed to track several activities in defined parameters and are increasingly becoming a part of everyday life. According to Markets and Markets Report, the global wearable tech market is projected to reach a staggering USD 256.4 billion by 2026. One of the main areas of use of wearable devices is health, including biomedical research, health care, personal health practices and tracking, technology development, and engineering. These wearable devices often include digital health technologies such as consumer smartwatches that monitor an individual's heart rate and step count, and other body-worn sensors like those that continuously monitor blood glucose concentration. 

Wearable devices used by the general population are getting increasingly popular. Health devices like fitness trackers and smartwatches enable continuous monitoring of personal health. Privacy is an emerging concern due to the real-time collection of sensitive data. Vulnerabilities due to unauthorised access or discrimination in case of information being revealed without consent are the primary concerns with these devices. While these concerns are present a lot of related misinformation is emerging due to the same. 

While wearable devices typically come with terms of use that outline how data is collected and used, and there are regulations in place such as EU Law GDPR, such regulations largely govern the regulatory compliances on the handling of personal data, however, the implementation and compliances by the manufacturer is a one another aspect which might present the question on privacy protection. In addition, beyond the challenge of regulatory compliance, the rise of myths and misinformation surrounding wearable tech presents a separate issue. 

Common Misconceptions About Privacy with Wearable Tech

• With the rapid development and growth of wearable technology their use has been subject to countless rumours which fuel misinformation narratives in the minds of general public. Addressing these misconceptions and privacy concerns requires targeted strategies.
• A prevalent misconception is that they are constantly spying on users. While wearable devices collect users’ data in real time, their vulnerability to unauthorised access is similar to that of a non-wearable device.  The issue is of consent when it comes to wearable technology because it gives the ability to record.  If permissions are not asked when a person is being recorded then the data is accessible to external entities.
• There is a common myth that wearable tech is surveillance tool. This is entirely a conjecture. These devices collect the user data with their prior consent and have been created to provide them with real-time information, most commonly physical health information. Since users choose the information shared, the idea of wearable tech serving as a surveillance tool is unfounded.
• Another misconception about wearable tech is that it can diagnose medical conditions. These devices collect real-time health data, such as heart rate or activity levels, they are not designed for medical diagnosis. The data collected may not always be accurate or reliable for clinical use to be interpreted by a healthcare professional. This is mainly because the makers of these devices are not held to the safety and liability standards that medical providers are.
• A prevalent misconception is that wearable tech can cure health issues, which is simply untrue. Wearable tech devices are essentially tracking the health parameters that a user sets. It in no way is a cure for any health issue that one suffers from. A user can manage their health based on the parameters they set on the device such as the number of steps that they walk, check on the heart rate and other metrics for their mental satisfaction but they are not a cure to treat diseases. Wearable tech acts as alerts, notifying users of important health metrics and encouraging proactive health management.

Addressing Privacy and Health Concerns in Wearable Tech

Wearable technology raises concerns for privacy and health due to the colossal amount of personal data collected. To address these, strong data protection measures are essential, ensuring that sensitive health information is securely stored and shared only with consent. Providing users with control over their data is one of the ways to build user trust. It includes enabling them to opt in, access, or delete the data in question. Regulators should establish clear guidelines, ensuring wearables ensure the compliances with data protection regulations like HIPPA, GDPR or DPDP Act, whichever is applicable as per the jurisdiction. Furthermore, global standards for data encryption, device security, and user privacy should be implemented to mitigate risks. Transparency in data usage and consistent updates to software security are also crucial for protecting users' privacy and health while promoting the responsible use of wearable tech.

CyberPeace Insights

• Making informed decisions about wearable tech starts with thorough research. Start by reading reviews and comparing products to assess their features, compatibility, and security standards. 
• Investigate the manufacturer’s reputation for data protection and device longevity. Understanding device capabilities is crucial. One should evaluate whether the wearable meets their needs, such as fitness tracking, health monitoring, or communication features. Consider software security and updates, and data accuracy when comparing options.  Opt for devices that offer two-factor authentication for an additional layer of security.
• Check the permissions requested by the accompanying app; only grant access to data that is necessary for the device's functionality. Always read the terms of use to understand your rights and responsibilities regarding the use of the device. Review and customize data-sharing settings for better control to prevent unauthorised access.
• Staying updated on the tech is equally important. A user should follow the advancements in wearable technology be it regular security updates, or regulatory changes that may affect privacy and usability. This ensures getting tech that aligns with user lifestyle while meeting privacy and security expectations.

Conclusion

Privacy and Misinformation are key concerns that emerge due to the use of wearable tech designed to offer benefits such as health monitoring, fitness tracking, and personal convenience. It requires a combination of informed decision-making by users and stringent regulatory oversight to overcome the issues that emerge due to misinformation about these devices. Users must ensure they understand the capabilities and limitations of their devices, from data accuracy to privacy risks. Additionally, manufacturers and regulators need to prioritise transparency, data protection, and compliance with global standards like GDPR or DPDP to build trust. As wearable tech continues to evolve, a balanced approach to innovation and privacy will be essential in fostering its responsible and beneficial use for all.

References

1. https://thehealthcaretechnologyreport.com/privacy-data-security-concerns-rise-as-healthcare-wearables-gain-popularity/ 
2. https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000104
3. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/wearable-electronics-market-983.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwgMqSBhDCARIsAIIVN1V0sqrk6SpYSga3rcDtWcwh8npZ08L0_s4X91gh7yPAa6QmsctB-lMaAlpqEALw_wcB 
4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-information-management/article/health-data-on-the-go-navigating-privacy-concerns-with-wearable-technologies/05DAF11EFA807051362BB39260C4814C

‍

Introduction 

‍

Regulatory agencies throughout Europe have stepped up their monitoring of digital communication platforms because of the increased use of Artificial Intelligence in the digital domain. Messaging services have evolved into being more than just messaging systems, they now serve as a gateway for Artificial Intelligence services, Business Tools and Digital Marketplaces. In light of this evolution, the Competition Authority in Italy has taken action against Meta Platforms and ordered Meta to cease activities on WhatsApp that are deemed to restrict the ability of other companies to sell AI-based chatbots. This action highlights the concerns surrounding Gatekeeping Power, Market Foreclosure and Innovation Suppression. This proceeding will also raise questions regarding the application of Competition Law to the actions of Dominant Digital Platforms, where they leverage their own ecosystems to promote their own AI products to the detriment of competitors.

‍

Background of the Case

‍

In December 2025, Italy’s competition authority, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), ordered Meta Platforms to suspend certain contractual terms governing WhatsApp. These terms allegedly prevented or restricted the operation of third-party AI chatbots on WhatsApp’s platform.

The decision was issued as an interim measure during an ongoing antitrust investigation. According to the AGCM, the disputed terms risked excluding competing AI chatbot providers from accessing a critical digital channel, thereby distorting competition and harming consumer choice.

‍

Why WhatsApp Matters as a Digital Gateway

‍

WhatsApp is situated uniquely within the European digital landscape. It has hundreds of millions of users throughout the entire European Union; therefore, it is an integral part of the communication infrastructure that supports communications between individual consumers and companies as well as between companies and their service providers. AI chatbot developers depend heavily upon WhatsApp as it provides the ability to connect directly with consumers in real-time, which is critical to their success as business offers.

According to the Italian regulator's opinion, a corporation that controls the ability to communicate via such a popular platform has a tremendous influence over innovation within that market as it essentially operates as a gatekeeper between the company creating an innovative service and the consumer using that service. If Meta is permitted to stop competing AI chatbot developers while providing more productive and useful offers than those offered by competing developers, it is likely that competing developers will be unable to market and distribute their innovative products at sufficient scale to remain competitive.

‍

Alleged Abuse of Dominant Position

‍

Under EU and national competition law, companies holding a dominant market position bear a special responsibility not to distort competition. The AGCM’s concern is that Meta may have abused WhatsApp’s dominance by:

• Restricting market access for rival AI chatbot providers
• Limiting technical development by preventing interoperability
• Strengthening Meta’s own AI ecosystem at the expense of competitors

Such conduct, if proven, could amount to an abuse under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Importantly, the authority emphasised that even contractual terms—rather than explicit bans—can have exclusionary effects when imposed by a dominant platform.

‍

Meta’s Response and Infrastructure Argument

‍

Meta has openly condemned the Italian ruling as “fundamentally flawed,” arguing that third-party AI chatbots represent a major economic burden to the infrastructure and risk the performance, safety, and user enjoyment of WhatsApp.

Although the protection of infrastructure is a valid issue of concern, competition authorities commonly look at whether the justifications for such restrictions are appropriate and non-discriminatory. One of the principal legal issues is whether the restrictions imposed by Meta were applied in a uniform manner or whether they were selectively imposed in favour of Meta's AI services. If the restrictions are asymmetrical in application, they may be viewed as anti-competitive rather than as legitimate technical safeguards.

‍

Link to the EU’s Digital Markets Framework

‍

The Italian case fits into a wider EU context in relation to their efforts to regulate the actions of large technology companies with the use of prior (ex-ante) regulation as contained in the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA has put in place obligations on a set of gatekeepers to make available to third parties on a non-discriminatory basis in order to maintain equitable access, interoperability and no discrimination against those parties.

While the Italian case has been brought pursuant to an Italian competition law, its philosophy is consistent with that of the DMA in that dominant digital platforms should not undertake actions that use their control over their core products and services to prevent other companies from being able to innovate. The trend with some EU national regulators is to be increasingly willing to take swift action through the application of interim measures rather than await many years for final decisions.

‍

Implications for AI Developers and Platforms

‍

The Italian order signifies to developers of AI-based chatbots that competitive access to AI technology via messaging services is an important factor for regulatory bodies. The order also serves as a warning to the large incumbent organisations that are establishing a foothold in the messaging services market to integrate AI into their already established platforms that they will not be protected from competition laws.

Additionally, the overall case showcases the growing consensus amongst regulatory agencies regarding the role of competition in the development of AI. If a handful of large companies are allowed to control both the infrastructure and the AI technology being operated on top of that infrastructure, the result will likely be the development of closed ecosystems that eliminate or greatly reduce the potential for technology diversity.

‍

Conclusion 

‍

Italy's move against Meta highlights a significant intersection between competitive laws and artificial intelligence. The Italian antitrust authority has reinforced the principle that digital gatekeepers cannot use contractual methods to block off access to competition in targeting WhatsApp's restrictive terms. As AI becomes a larger part of our day to day digital services, regulatory bodies will likely continue to increase their scrutiny on platform behaviour. The result of this investigation will impact not just the Metaverse's AI strategy, but also create a baseline for future European regulators' methods of balancing innovation versus competition versus consumer choice in an increasingly AI-driven digital marketplace. 

‍

References 

‍

1. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-halt-whatsapp-terms-barring-rival-ai-chatbots-2025-12-24/ 
2. https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/24/italy-tells-meta-to-suspend-its-policy-that-bans-rival-ai-chatbots-from-whatsapp/ 
3. https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-to-halt-whatsapp-terms-barring-rival-ai-chatbots/
4. https://www.techinasia.com/news/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-halt-whatsapp-terms-ai-bot 

‍

Introduction
‍

India's digital governance system is experiencing a significant transformation. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has extended the deadline for implementing SIM binding requirements for messaging platforms to December 31, 2026, while also stepping back from earlier proposals such as mandatory periodic web logouts. 

The government extended the current proposal but decided to cancel its previous requirement, which mandated messaging platforms to implement mandatory logout periods. The authorities implemented this action to control the increasing occurrence of digital impersonation, financial fraud, online scams and identity theft, which occurs through messaging applications.

The authorities are said to have implemented this action to control the increasing occurrence of digital impersonation, financial fraud, online scams and identity theft, which occurs through messaging applications.
‍

What Has Changed
‍

The SIM binding mandate, which the Telecommunication Cyber Security framework introduced in late 2025 requires messaging platforms to maintain user account connections with active SIM cards that match their registered mobile numbers. 

Platforms received a brief period for compliance with the original rules. Industry stakeholders, which included messaging services and device manufacturers, reported that they faced major technical and operational problems when trying to constantly verify SIM status on different devices and operating systems. 

The government postponed the compliance date to December 2026 to give organisations extra time for the gradual implementation of requirements. The policy now permits platforms to use risk-based or adaptive logout mechanisms, which enable security management without enforcing standard security procedures through their web messaging application platforms. 

‍

Why the Extension Was Necessary
‍

The extension operates as a recognition of both technical feasibility constraints and ecosystem's complex nature. Multiple devices at present enable messaging platforms to function which includes smartphones and desktops and web interfaces with real time synchronization. The system needs complete operational system and hardware component integration to maintain active SIM verification throughout all environments because stakeholders estimated that this process would take time to achieve proper results. 

The operating system providers and smartphone manufacturers expressed their worries about system limitations, which include testing procedures and compatibility problems. 

The government recognised through its deadline extension that security requirements need technical feasibility and scalability to function properly without causing service interruptions or requiring immediate implementation.

‍

Security Rationale Behind SIM Binding
‍

The SIM binding system serves its main purpose to enhance accountability while it protects digital communication systems from unauthorised use. Authorities have identified that messaging accounts can remain active even after the associated SIM card is removed, deactivated, or moved across regions. The situation creates paths for criminals to commit fraud and impersonation while perpetrating cybercrime across international borders because they can use digital identities that are hard to trace. 

The SIM binding system exists to solve this problem by 

• requiring active, Virtual KYC-verified SIMs to authenticate messaging accounts. 
• Users cannot access the system until they connect their active SIM. 
• The system maintains the capacity to track and authenticate digital identities. 

The measure aims to eliminate a security gap that digital communication systems currently use for fraudulent activities and identity theft.

‍

Shift Toward Risk-Based Regulation
‍

The current development marks a major change because it no longer applies fixed rules that used to determine what organisations must do, but now uses risk assessment methods. The previous plan, which required users to log out every six hours from web sessions, has been replaced by platforms that now log users out based on their risk assessment. The shift demonstrates that cybersecurity needs to implement security measures that require specific context and need to match the existing environment. Organisations face challenges when trying to apply standard rules because users exhibit various behaviours while using different devices on multiple platforms. 

The risk-based model enables platforms to detect suspicious activity through dynamic monitoring, which establishes strict security measures for high-risk situations while preserving system access during periods of low risk.

‍

Implications for the Digital Ecosystem
‍

The extension, together with its related policy alterations, creates significant effects for organisations. The extra time allows the industry to create systems that can work together with different ecosystems while testing their implementation process and matching their required operational standards. 

The shift shows policymakers that they should adopt a process that combines multiple rounds of assessment with stakeholder input to develop their regulations. 

The upcoming changes will create invisible effects for users, which will determine the future methods of digital identity verification and the security functions of communication platforms.

‍

Conclusion
‍

The extension of the SIM binding deadline represents a new approach to regulations instead of being a regulatory rollback. The process requires both dedicated efforts and actual implementation to create secure digital environments. 

India needs to establish secure and scalable user-friendly systems while advancing its digital infrastructure development. The current developments show progress toward achieving a solution that protects cybersecurity needs while considering technological facts and user experience. Organisations face two main obstacles in modern interdependent systems: they must protect their systems while maintaining user trust and system protection, and their capability to operate over extended periods.
‍

References
‍

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/government-shelves-periodic-web-logout-for-chat-apps-extends-sim-binding-to-december-31/article70811929.ece
• https://www.gadgets360.com/telecom/news/dot-sim-binding-mandate-extension-2026-report-11301917

‍