StartupTalky

Tag: penalty

  • CCPA Fines Rapido INR 10 Lakh for Misleading Advertisement

    The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has ordered Rapido (Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd.) to pay a penalty of INR 10 lakh for printing deceptive advertisements and engaging in unfair trade practices, in a move to defend consumer rights.

    Misleading ‘Auto in 5 Min’ Promotion Explained

    The Authority has additionally instructed the online ride-hailing platform to guarantee that any customer who used the “AUTO IN 5 MIN OR GET INR 50” promotion and did not obtain the promised INR 50 compensation will receive a complete reimbursement of the money without any further conditions or delays.

    Consumer Complaints Against Rapido Surge

    Rapido’s deceptive advertising, which promised customers “AUTO IN 5 MIN OR GET INR 50” and “Guaranteed Auto”, was brought to the attention of the CCPA. Following a thorough analysis, the CCPA determined that these commercials were unfair to consumers, untrue, and misleading. As a result, the CCPA ordered that the deceptive commercials be removed immediately.

    Shocking Revelation by National Consumer Helpline (NCH)

    Complaints
    Against Rapido

    •575 complaints against Rapido between
    April 2023 and May 2024.

    •1,224 complaints between June 2024
    and July 2025.

     According to the CCPA’s investigation, Rapido’s adverts featured the notice “T&C Apply” in an incredibly small and unreadable font. Even then, the reward was “up to INR 50” and not necessarily precisely INR 50. The promised INR 50 benefit was not actual currency (in rupees), but rather “Rapido coins”. These coins had a seven-day validity period and could only be used for Rapido bike rides. These limitations significantly diminished the offer’s value and essentially forced customers to switch to another Rapido service in an unreasonable amount of time.

    Customers were deceived into selecting Rapido by these omissions, which gave the false sense of guaranteed service. Furthermore, the Terms and Conditions made clear that individual captains, not Rapido, were providing the guarantee, even though the advertisement made the bold claim, “Auto in 5 minutes or get INR 50.” By deceiving customers about the precise guarantee stated in the advertisement, this paradoxical position sought to shift responsibility away from the business.

    What the Advertising Guidelines Say?

    According to the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertising and Endorsements, 2022, advertising cannot utilise disclaimers to rectify a misleading claim, hide important facts, or contradict the main claim.

    In Rapido’s case, the statements “Auto in 5 min or get INR 50” and “Guaranteed Auto” gave the idea that customers would always be charged ₹50 if the car was not delivered within 5 minutes.

    Nevertheless, the important restriction that the benefit was limited to “up to INR 50” and only in the form of Rapido coins with a brief validity was either left out or not made as prominently known. The commercial was misleading due to its lack of clarity and concealment, which was a clear violation of the guidelines.

    Quick
    Shots

    •Ads promised “AUTO IN 5 MIN OR GET
    INR 50” and “Guaranteed Auto”, but compensation was unclear and misleading.

    •Rapido directed to reimburse all
    customers who were denied the promised INR 50 benefit.

    •“T&C Apply” displayed in tiny,
    unreadable font; compensation was Rapido coins, not actual money.

    •Rapido coins valid for 7 days and
    usable only for bike rides, reducing consumer value.

  • IRDAI Slaps INR 5 Cr Fine on Policybazaar Over Insurance Norm Breach

    For many infractions of insurance regulations, insurtech giant Policybazaar was fined INR 5 Cr by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). The infractions pertaining to unclear outsourcing contracts with insurers were also listed in the IRDAI order.

    Lack of Transparency in Outsourcing Deals Raises Red Flags

    Large quantities of money were paid to Policybazaar by insurance firms for outsourcing services in accordance with the directive, but many of the agreements lacked fundamental details, including the extent of the services and the rationale behind the fees.

    Payments were frequently provided on a “per seat” basis, according to the regulator, with no connection to the actual services rendered. According to IRDAI, this called into doubt fairness and transparency. The inadequate state of internal record-keeping was another major worry. It is alleged that the corporation neglected to tag thousands of insurance policies to the authorised verifiers who are in charge of selling them.

    Policy Tagging & Verification Gaps Expose Internal Flaws

    Despite repeated demands, Policybazaar was unable to provide call recordings or the required paperwork to verify if the right procedures were followed while selling these products, according to IRDAI.

    Additionally, IRDAI discovered that the business had postponed sending the insurance premiums that were collected from clients to the appropriate insurers. Policybazaar’s own payment gateway and nodal account were used to process premium payments, and in a few instances, the funds were not moved within the required 24-hour window.

    IRDAI found delays of more than 30 days in a sample set of insurance. According to the regulator, this presents a systemic risk and goes against the fundamental rule that insurers can only take on risk when they have received the entire and on-time premium.

    Breakdown of IRDAI’s Charges Against Policybazaar

    Five of the charges resulted in warnings, advice, or instructions for corrective action, while the remaining six offences included cash penalties of INR 1 Cr apiece. Policybazaar has been instructed to produce an action taken report within ninety days and to transmit the order to its board at its upcoming meeting.

    This follows PB Fintech, the parent company of Policybazaar, reporting a consolidated profit after tax (PAT) of INR 84.7 Cr in Q1 FY26, up 41% from INR 60 Cr in the same quarter last year. The remarkable gain of INR 41.1 Cr throughout the quarter was a major factor in this. In the first quarter of FY26, operating revenue increased 34% year over year to INR 1,348 Cr.

  • Why Google was hit with $123 million Antitrust fine in Italy

    Google has been fined by the watchdog of Italy in regards to abusing its dominant position in the market. Google already has a dominant position in the market through the Android smartphone platform. The tech company has been facing a lot of antitrust decisions in the recent years from the European Union. Let’s look at why the tech company has been fined by Italy’s watchdog.

    Details of the Fine
    Reason for the Fine
    The Competetion
    The ACGM
    Google’s Response
    FAQ

    Details of the Fine

    Google has been fined by the watchdog of Italy which is estimated to be around USD 123 million for abusing its dominant position in the market. The case is related to the modified version of Google’s OS which is used in cars known as Android Auto.

    The case is specifically concentrated on restrictions made by Google on their platform towards an electric car charging app called juice pass which is made by an energy company called Enel X Italia.

    Reason for the Fine

    Android Auto is a feature offered by Google for the drivers and motorists to access the maps and music streaming device while the vehicle is on the run through a dash mounted device. But Enel X Italia is a third-party app that was denied access to provide its features on Android Auto.

    Enel X Italia’s mobile app is available through the smartphone version of the android platform but the users can’t use it or are supposed to use their phone while driving. So, the restriction of access of the app on the Android Auto is equal to cutting down their competition.

    How will Atmanirbhar Digital India Foundation benefit startups
    Atmanirbhar Digital India Foundation (ADIF) is a body formed by a group ofIndian investors and startup founders. They have joined hands together to set upa new alliance. This body is also expected to in the creation of sustainable development andgrowth in the digital economy in the country by i…
    StartupTalkyAlan Joseph

    The Competetion

    The authorities have conveyed that the Google Maps app which provides basic services for the Electric vehicles such as finding and getting directions to charging points is available through Android Auto.

    According to the findings of certain authorities, Google did not allow Enel X Italia to develop a version of the JuicePass app which would be compatible with the Android Auto OS.  

    The JuicePass app had features that would be compatible with the motorists with safety. The app would let the motorists to find an electric vehicle station, providing directions and even reserving a place at the station.

    By restricting the availability of the app on the Android Auto the authorities claim that the company has favored its Google Maps which currently provides the features of finding and locating charging stations and in the future can provide the features such as reserving a place and payment.

    The ACGM

    The AGCM has conveyed that Google had violated the Article 102 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and has given an order to make the mobile application of JuicePass available on the Android Auto platform.

    They also added that Google will have to provide the same access towards the Android Auto to other third-party app developers. AGCM has conveyed that it has concerns about whether Google’s restrictions on apps would have an impact on the electric mobility market.

    They added that if this was going to continue then it would permanently impact the future of JuicePass and reduce their user base when the electric mobility market is developing in the country. This would reduce the choice for the consumers and also act as a barrier to innovation.

    Why SEBI Imposed 25 crore penalty on Mukesh Ambani, Anil Ambani, others
    There was a recent news headlines which said SEBI has slapped INR 25 crore fineon Ambani’s due to the 2000 case over the allegation of violation of thetakeover code regulations. Let’s look at the below article to get a clearunderstanding about the regulation and the reason for imposing the fine.…
    StartupTalkyAlan Joseph

    Google’s Response

    Google has denied the accusation and has conveyed that they haven’t done anything wrong. At the same time, the company hasn’t confirmed whether they were planning to appeal. The tech giant has confirmed that the restrictions that they place on the applications are necessary to maintain the safety of the drivers.

    They conveyed that they have been opening up the platform to more apps over time with thousands of them being more compatible. They have conveyed that they intend to expand its availability.

    Google has said in a statement that they have strict guidelines on the types of apps which are currently supported and these apps are based on certain industry standards and driver distraction tests. They said that they disagree with the decision of the authority and are planning to review their options.

    FAQ

    What is meant by antitrust?

    Antitrust laws are regulations that encourage competition by limiting the market power of any particular firm.

    What are the 3 antitrust laws?

    The three major antitrust laws in the U.S. are: the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA).

    What is ACGM in Italy?

    The Italian Competition Authority or AGCM is the Competition regulator in Italy.

    Conclusion

    The AGCM has said that it would monitor the compliance of Google so that it ensures to order it effectively and implements the obligations correctly to provide access to third party apps through Android Auto.

  • Reasons Why SEBI Imposed 25 crore penalty on Mukesh Ambani, Anil Ambani, others

    There was a recent news headlines which said SEBI has slapped INR 25 crore fine on Ambani’s due to the 2000 case over the allegation of violation of the takeover code regulations. Let’s look at the below article to get a clear understanding about the regulation and the reason for imposing the fine.

    Substantial Acquisitions of Shares and Takeovers (SAST) Regulations 1997
    What Happened with the Ambani family?
    Adjudication Order and SEBI
    Fine To be Paid by Ambani Family
    SEBI and Ambani
    FAQ

    Substantial Acquisitions of Shares and Takeovers (SAST) Regulations 1997

    According to the Substantial Acquisitions of Shares and Takeovers (SAST) Regulations 1997, If a company’s promoter group acquires more than 5% of the voting rights in the company, during a financial year. Then the company will have to make an open offer to the minority investors which will give them an option to exit the company if required.

    What Happened with the Ambani family?

    SEBI has fined the Ambani family which include Mukesh Ambani, Nita Ambani, Anil Ambani, Tina Ambani and the various other firms linked to the Ambani group. It is because they have been alleged for violation of the takeover code regulations in 2000.

    The case is because of the increase in the promoter stake of the Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) which is during January 2000. The promoter stake in the company was increased after the conversion of various warrants which was issues during 1994.

    In January 2000, the promoter stake of Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) had increased to 6.83% from the maximum limit of 5% according to SEBI. Securities Exchange Board of India has even alleged that the company or the promoter group had failed to make an offer to the minority investors providing them an opportunity to exit the company.

    SEBI has said that the promoter group of Reliance Industries Ltd had failed to make an open offer as required under the norms issued.

    SEBI has said that in the instant case the violation was not just committed for a particular year or once and for all but it continues till date, that is even now the promoters of Reliance Industries have the majority voting rights in the company.

    Total debt of Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited from financial year 2017 to 2020
    Total debt of Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited 

    List of Major Subsidiaries of Reliance Industries | Reliance Owned Companies
    Reliance Industries Limited is an Indian multinational conglomerate company thatis headquartered in Mumbai, India. Reliance owns businesses across India engagedin energy, petrochemicals, textiles, natural resources, retail, andtelecommunications. Reliance is one of the most profitable and the lar…
    StartupTalkyPV Vyshnavi

    Adjudication Order and SEBI

    In an 85-page adjudication order it was written that the violation of the statutory provisions by which the acquisitions of securities giving the notices that is the Ambani family has provided enhanced control by the exercise of voting rights, etc.

    Which is a disobedience against the regulation and these are violations which are being continued so long as the voting rights are acquired by violating the letter and the spirit of the law.

    SEBI has said that the notices have been alleged because they have been failed to make a public announcement, when they were acquiring more shares of the company to increase the promoter holdings. This has led the other shareholders to be deprived of their statutory rights and opportunity to exit from the target company.

    This has led the promoter group of Reliance Industries Ltd to breach the provisions of Substantial Acquisitions of Shares and Takeovers (SAST) Regulations 1997. All these charges against the notices will make the instant matter grave.

    The SEBI order has said that it has been difficult to ascertain the value of the unfair advantage made by RIL promoter group due to this violation.

    SEBI had said that while determining the amount of penalty they have not found any amount which can be expressed as figures or any data which can be used to record the gain received by the promoter group because of this violation and the amount of loss which has been caused to the minority shareholders in the company as a result of the default that was committed.

    Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries is offering to sell a roughly $20 billion stake to Amazon.com
    Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries Ltd. is offering to sella roughly $20 billion stake in its retail business to Amazon.com Inc., accordingto a person with knowledge of the matter. Mukesh Ambani, which has alreadyraised $20 billion in this year from investors including Faceboo…
    StartupTalkyArbaz Sayed

    Fine To be Paid by Ambani Family

    Under Section 15H of the SEBI Act which was amended in October 2002, a maximum penalty of INR 25 crore or three times the number of profits made out of the failure is allowed.

    The Regulator has said that the penalty of INR 25 crore will have to be paid together by the 34 individuals who are named in the SEBI order which includes the mother of Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani and even the children of Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani. The amount is said to be paid within 45 days.

    SEBI and Ambani

    In November 2020, in reply to the regulator SEBI said the Ambani family that the issue of warrants and the issue of shares on conversion of warrants were not to subject to SEBI’s Substantial Acquisitions of Shares and Takeovers (SAST) Regulations 1997.

    The Reliance promoter group had responded to SEBI saying that the initiation of the adjudication proceedings in the particular case with a large misappropriate delay was unreasonable, arbitrary and causes substantial prejudice to the notices.

    FAQ

    What is the number of Mukesh Ambani in world richest person?

    Reliance Industries (RIL) Chairman Mukesh Ambani is the eighth richest person in the world with a fortune of $83 billion, according to the Hurun Global Rich List 2021.

    Who is the CEO of Jio?

    Atul Kansal is the current CEO of Jio.

    How much did Ambani earn in lockdown?

    According to the Oxfam report, Ambani earned Rs 90 crore per hour during the coronavirus pandemic.

    Conclusion

    The market regulator had issued the show cause notices (SCN) regarding this matter in February 2011. That is almost 11 years after the allegation of violation.