This is a rundown of last week\u2019s news updates on Privacy and Antitrust:<\/p>\n
Given Britain\u2019s exit from the European Union, the question has now revolved around Britain\u2019s obligations under privacy law, as it would now be considered as a third country under the provisions of the EU General Data Protection Regulation, which encumbers stricter compliance for handling data. As part of its overhaul of its Data Protection Act, Britain intends to do away with cookie popups and consent requests, in what it terms a \u201ccommon sense\u201d move. The aim behind such a move is supposedly to \u201cboost growth especially for small firms and startups, speed up scientific discoveries and improve public services\u201d. The British government also intends to enter into adequacy agreements with six shortlisted nations, to establish that UK data protection law is adequate by their own standards, facilitating ease in data transfer across borders.<\/p>\n
In a suit filed by a Bengali actress, the Delhi High Court has memorialised the right to be forgotten, as a corollary to the right to privacy that was established by a Supreme Court decision in 2017. As a remedy consequent to the finding of the existence of a right to be forgotten, the Court ordered various online platforms, YouTube being one of them, to remove explicit material from their sites that involved the actress. The Court noted that invasions to privacy must be remedied especially when the actress\u2019 personality was being exhibited against her will.<\/p>\n
The CCI has found that leading car manufacturer Maruti Suzuki\u2019s dealer discount policy, wherein it forced its dealers to subscribe to a maximum level of discount offered to consumers, resulted in an adverse effect on competition by harming consumers who could have enjoyed lower prices had dealers been extended the freedom to compete competitively. The CCI has asked Maruti to cease and desist from continuing such practices, and also deposit the fine amount within 60 days. The CCI also took the liberty to effectively term the fine amount as conservative, as it iterated that the fine amount was decided upon after considering the post-pandemic recovery phase of the automobile sector.<\/p>\n
Following a lawsuit filed by a group of small app developers, and possible mounting antitrust scrutiny, tech giant Apple has stated that it will now allow developers provide users with options to make payments outside the App Store, along with expansions to the types of prices that developers can charge via subscriptions, in-app purchases and paid apps. This move is widely viewed as a means to stem the bleeding caused by Apple\u2019s monopolistic practices in regulating activity on their App Store, which involved a tight grip over downloading of apps, as well as the high commission levied on purchases made through the App Store.<\/p>\n