The rapid advancement of technology has profoundly transformed various aspects of society, including the legal landscape. In India, these technological developments have significantly impacted tort law, necessitating adaptations and reforms to address new challenges. Traditional tort principles, designed to handle physical harm and property damage, now grapple with the complexities introduced by the digital age.

One of the critical areas where technology intersects with tort law is the liability of internet service providers (ISPs) and social media platforms for defamation. In an era where online communication is ubiquitous, the spread of defamatory content can be swift and far-reaching. The legal framework in India, particularly through the Information Technology Act, 2000, has attempted to address these issues by outlining the responsibilities and liabilities of intermediaries. However, the balance between protecting individual reputations and maintaining freedom of expression remains a contentious issue, highlighting the need for ongoing legal evolution.

Additionally, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous vehicles presents new regulatory challenges for tort law. AI systems, with their ability to operate autonomously and make decisions independent of human intervention, complicate traditional notions of liability. Determining accountability in cases where AI causes harm involves rethinking established legal principles and developing new frameworks to ensure that victims can seek redress while fostering technological innovation. Similarly, autonomous vehicles introduce complex scenarios in accident liability, demanding a re-evaluation of existing traffic and safety laws.[1]

The integration of these technologies into daily life underscores the urgency for India's legal system to adapt. The dynamic interplay between technological advancements and tort law requires a forward-thinking approach that addresses the novel issues arising from digital and automated environments. By exploring the liability of ISPs and social media platforms for defamation and tackling the regulatory challenges posed by AI and autonomous vehicles, this discourse aims to illuminate the path forward for tort law in India in the face of rapid technological change.

What is Tort Law

Tort law is the set of laws that allows people to seek compensation for wrongs done to them. A person or entity that has been physically harmed, has had their property damaged, or has had its reputation damaged by someone else's conduct may file a claim for damages in court. Damages are a sum of money that the court orders the at-fault party to pay to the injured party. Damages may be granted as payment for an injury, for financial loss, for loss of or damage to real estate or personal property.[2]

Types of Torts

There are a number of specific types of torts that form the basis of the majority of civil cases in India.

These include, among others:

• Negligence
• Assault
• Battery
• Trespass
• Products Liability

Tort law divides most specific torts into three general categories:

• Intentional Torts: the causing of harm by an intentional act, such as intentionally conning someone out of his money.
• Negligent Torts: the causing of harm through some negligent act, such as causing a car accident by running a red light.
• Strict Liability Torts: the result of harm incurred due to the actions of another, with no finding of fault by the defendant.

Sui Generis Torts originating in India

While most torts in modern Indian law are derived from England and are shared with other common law jurisdictions, a few originated uniquely in India due to its distinct constitutional jurisprudence. These torts are mainly focused on consumer protection and human rights enforcement and are closely associated with India's legal culture of public interest litigation. This culture resembles North American class action lawsuits and private attorney general suits more closely than litigation in the UK.

The concept of absolute liability in Indian tort law, as established in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[3], is a unique extension of the strict liability doctrine for ultrahazardous activities. Based on the English precedent set by Rylands v. Fletcher, which holds that anyone who uses their land in a "non-natural" way and accumulates potentially harmful substances is responsible for any direct damage caused by their escape, the Indian principle of absolute liability differs significantly. While the UK applies this precedent primarily to land damage and does not cover personal injuries, Indian courts have expanded it into a principle of absolute liability. This means that an enterprise is fully liable, without exceptions, for compensating everyone affected by any accident resulting from hazardous activities, covering all types of resulting liabilities beyond just land damage.

Additional and separate specific torts include:

• Defamation Torts
• Nuisance Torts
• Privacy Torts
• Economic Torts
   

Examples of Tort Law

A Liability Case: In Mountain View, California, in February 2016, a Google autonomous vehicle collided with a bus. The vehicle spotted a cluster of sandbags surrounding a storm drain and veered into an alternate lane, colliding with the side of a public transportation bus in the process. This was the first known instance of an autonomous vehicle starting an accident rather than merely being a witness to one.

The Evolution of Tort Law in the Digital Age

The digital age has necessitated significant adaptations in Indian tort law to address novel challenges and scenarios that traditional legal frameworks were not designed to handle. Initially, tort law in India, much like in other common law jurisdictions, primarily dealt with physical harm and property damage. However, the proliferation of the internet and digital technologies has introduced complex issues such as cyber defamation, data breaches, and online harassment...

Liability of Internet Service Providers and Social Media Platforms

The Legal Landscape for ISPs and Social Media Platforms: Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and social media platforms have become integral parts of the digital ecosystem...

Landmark Cases Shaping Intermediary Liability:

1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The ruling in this case was significant for India's tort law development as well as digital rights...
2. MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (2016): This case is seminal in understanding the responsibility of intermediaries such as social media platforms and ISPs...

Challenges and Criticisms

• Actual Knowledge Requirement: The requirement for actual knowledge can be cumbersome and may delay the removal of harmful content.
• Content Moderation: Social media platforms face immense pressure to balance free speech with the need to prevent the spread of defamatory and harmful content.
• Jurisdictional Issues: The global nature of the internet complicates jurisdictional issues...

Artificial Intelligence and Tort Law

Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents unique challenges for tort law...

Issues of Liability:

• Negligence: Determining negligence involves establishing a duty of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damage...
• Strict Liability: Some propose applying strict liability to AI, where the operator is held liable for any harm caused by the AI...

Regulatory Approaches:

• Regulatory Sandboxes: Creating environments where AI technologies can be tested and developed under regulatory supervision...
• Mandatory Insurance: Requiring operators of AI systems to carry insurance to cover potential harms...
• Ethical Guidelines: Developing ethical guidelines and standards for AI development and use to minimize risks and ensure accountability...

Types of Torts

• Defamation Torts
• Nuisance Torts
• Privacy Torts
• Economic Torts

A Liability Case: In Mountain View, California, in February 2016, a Google autonomous vehicle collided with a bus. The vehicle spotted a cluster of sandbags surrounding a storm drain and veered into an alternate lane, colliding with the side of a public transportation bus in the process. This was the first known instance of an autonomous vehicle starting an accident rather than merely being a witness to one.

The Evolution of Tort Law in the Digital Age

The digital age has necessitated significant adaptations in Indian tort law to address novel challenges and scenarios that traditional legal frameworks were not designed to handle. Initially, tort law in India, much like in other common law jurisdictions, primarily dealt with physical harm and property damage. However, the proliferation of the internet and digital technologies has introduced complex issues such as cyber defamation, data breaches, and online harassment. These new forms of harm require an evolution in the legal principles governing torts to ensure victims can still seek redress and to hold perpetrators accountable in a rapidly changing technological landscape.

One of the most significant developments in this context has been the legal treatment of intermediaries, such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and social media platforms, concerning defamatory content. Indian courts and legislation, particularly the Information Technology Act, 2000, have had to balance protecting individuals' reputations with maintaining the free flow of information online. Section 79 of the IT Act provides conditional immunity to intermediaries, contingent upon their adherence to prescribed due diligence practices, such as acting upon receiving actual knowledge of illegal content. Landmark judgments like Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [5]have further clarified these responsibilities, establishing a legal framework that addresses the unique challenges posed by digital communication.

Moreover, the emergence of advanced technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous vehicles has added further layers of complexity to tort law in India. Traditional notions of liability, such as negligence and strict liability, are being reassessed in the context of these technologies. For instance, the principles of absolute liability, as shaped by cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, are being reconsidered to cover the risks associated with AI systems and autonomous vehicles. These technologies operate with a level of autonomy and unpredictability that traditional legal frameworks struggle to accommodate, prompting calls for new regulatory measures and ethical guidelines to ensure accountability and safety in an increasingly automated world.

Liability of Internet Service Providers and Social Media Platforms

The Legal Landscape for ISPs and Social Media Platforms

• Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and social media platforms have become integral parts of the digital ecosystem. With the proliferation of user-generated content, these entities often find themselves at the center of legal disputes, particularly concerning defamation.
   
• Defamation and the Digital Age: Defamation involves making false statements about an individual that can harm their reputation. In the digital age, defamatory content can spread rapidly and widely, amplifying the harm caused. The challenge lies in determining the liability of ISPs and social media platforms for such content.
   
• Case Law and Legislative Framework: In India, Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides a degree of immunity to intermediaries (including ISPs and social media platforms) from liability for third-party content, provided they follow certain due diligence requirements. This includes acting upon receiving actual knowledge of unlawful content.
   
• Section 79: Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases.

Landmark Cases Shaping Intermediary Liability in India:

1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The ruling in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case is significant for India's tort law development as well as digital rights. This case, decided by the Indian Supreme Court in 2015, mainly concerned the legitimacy of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which made some types of online communication illegal. In its judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, declaring it unconstitutional due to its vagueness and the potential for abuse. The Court held that the section was not a reasonable restriction on free speech and had a chilling effect on online expression. This decision underscored the need for a clear and balanced approach in regulating online content, protecting individuals' rights without unduly stifling freedom of expression. The Shreya Singhal case also impacted intermediary liability under Section 79 of the IT Act, clarifying the conditions under which intermediaries like ISPs and social media platforms could claim immunity from liability for third-party content. It established that intermediaries must act upon receiving actual knowledge of illegal content through a court order or notification from the appropriate government authority to retain their immunity. This ruling has shaped the responsibilities of digital intermediaries in India, ensuring they balance the need to curb harmful content with the protection of free speech.
    
2. MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (2016): MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (2016) is a seminal case in the development of tort law in India, specifically regarding the responsibility of intermediaries such as social media platforms and ISPs for content published by users. The Delhi High Court considered whether user-uploaded information on MySpace, a social networking site, could make the company accountable for copyright infringement. The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries, claimed that MySpace was at fault for the illegal content that its members had uploaded.
   
   The court ruled that intermediaries cannot be held liable for third-party content unless they have actual knowledge of the infringing content and fail to remove it expeditiously. This decision was significant because it reinforced the protections offered to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides conditional immunity to intermediaries provided they follow certain due diligence requirements. This ruling aligns with the principles established in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, emphasizing that intermediaries are not obligated to proactively monitor all content but must act when notified of specific illegal content.
   
   The MySpace case has had a lasting impact on the evolution of tort law in India, particularly in the digital context. It has clarified the extent of liability for intermediaries, ensuring that while they are protected from blanket liability for user actions, they are also accountable for addressing known infringements. This balance is crucial in promoting a safe and legally compliant online environment without stifling the freedom and innovation essential to the digital age. This case thus represents a key development in adapting traditional tort principles to the complexities of modern digital interactions.

Challenges and Criticisms:
While the current legal framework provides some clarity, it also presents challenges:

• Actual Knowledge Requirement: The requirement for actual knowledge can be cumbersome and may delay the removal of harmful content.
• Content Moderation: Social media platforms face immense pressure to balance free speech with the need to prevent the spread of defamatory and harmful content. This often leads to accusations of censorship or inadequate moderation.
• Jurisdictional Issues: The global nature of the internet complicates jurisdictional issues, as content hosted on platforms based in one country can be accessed worldwide.

Artificial Intelligence and Tort Law

Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents unique challenges for tort law. AI systems, particularly those using machine learning, can operate with a level of autonomy and unpredictability that traditional legal frameworks struggle to accommodate. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force across various sectors, reshaping how we interact with technology and each other.

However, the integration of AI into everyday life brings unique challenges to the legal landscape, particularly in tort law. Traditional tort principles, such as negligence and strict liability, are being reevaluated to address the autonomous and sometimes unpredictable nature of AI systems. In India, the legal system is grappling with these new complexities, seeking to balance innovation with accountability.[8]

The initial challenge in applying tort law to AI lies in the attribution of liability. Traditional tort law requires clear identification of the duty of care, breach, causation, and damage. With AI, the autonomous decision-making process complicates this framework[9]. For example, if an AI-powered medical device misdiagnoses a patient, determining whether the fault lies with the device manufacturer, the software developer, or the healthcare provider becomes intricate. The Indian judiciary and legislative bodies are increasingly aware of these challenges and are exploring frameworks that can adequately address the multifaceted nature of AI-related torts.

Issues of Liability:
One of the primary issues with AI is determining liability when an AI system causes harm. Traditional tort principles such as negligence and strict liability need to be re-evaluated in this context.

• Negligence: Determining negligence involves establishing a duty of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damage. With AI, identifying who owes the duty of care can be complex. Is it the developer, the operator, or the user of the AI system?
• Strict Liability: Some propose applying strict liability to AI, where the operator is held liable for any harm caused by the AI, regardless of fault. This approach aims to ensure victims can seek redress, but it may stifle innovation and adoption of AI technologies.

Regulatory Approaches:

• Regulatory Sandboxes: Creating environments where AI technologies can be tested and developed under regulatory supervision to identify and mitigate potential risks.
• Mandatory Insurance: Requiring operators of AI systems to carry insurance to cover potential harms, similar to car insurance.
• Ethical Guidelines: Developing ethical guidelines and standards for AI development and use to minimize risks and ensure accountability.

Autonomous Vehicles and Tort Law

The advent of autonomous vehicles (AVs) represents a significant leap in transportation technology, promising increased safety, efficiency, and convenience. However, this technological innovation also brings complex legal challenges, particularly in the realm of tort law. Traditional legal frameworks, which primarily deal with human drivers, must evolve to address the unique issues presented by AVs. This includes determining liability in the event of an accident, where the vehicle, rather than a human driver, is in control.[11]

One of the primary challenges in applying tort law to autonomous vehicles is identifying the liable party when an accident occurs. Traditional tort principles such as negligence typically hold the driver responsible for causing harm. With AVs, potential defendants could include the vehicle manufacturer, the software developer, or even the entity responsible for maintaining the vehicle's operational systems. This complexity necessitates a rethinking of liability frameworks to ensure that victims of AV-related accidents can receive appropriate compensation.

Moreover, the concept of strict liability may become increasingly relevant in the context of autonomous vehicles. Under strict liability, a party can be held liable for damages without proof of negligence or fault, which is particularly pertinent for products deemed inherently dangerous. Applying strict liability to AVs would mean holding manufacturers and developers accountable for any harm caused by their vehicles, regardless of the specific circumstances. This approach aims to ensure public safety and accountability, though it could also stifle innovation by imposing heavy burdens on AV developers.

In addition to liability issues, regulatory measures need to be developed and refined to address the deployment and operation of autonomous vehicles. This includes establishing comprehensive safety standards, robust testing protocols, and clear guidelines for accident reporting and investigation. Policymakers must also consider data privacy concerns, as AVs collect and process vast amounts of data. The development of these regulations must balance the promotion of technological advancement with the protection of public safety and individual rights. As India moves forward in embracing autonomous vehicle technology, its legal and regulatory frameworks must evolve in tandem to address these multifaceted challenges effectively.

Issues of liability:

When an AV is involved in an accident, determining liability involves several potential parties:

• Manufacturer Liability: The manufacturer of the AV could be held liable if the accident is due to a defect in the vehicle's design or software.
• Operator Liability: If the AV operates in a semi-autonomous mode, the operator (or driver) might still bear some responsibility.
• Software Developer Liability: If the accident is due to a flaw in the vehicle's software, the developer might be held liable.

Legislative and Regulatory Measures:

Countries around the world are grappling with how to regulate AVs.

In India, the government is beginning to draft regulations, considering various international best practices:

• Safety Standards: Establishing rigorous safety standards for AVs to ensure they can operate safely on public roads.
• Testing and Certification: Implementing robust testing and certification processes for AVs before they can be deployed commercially.
• Data Privacy: Addressing data privacy concerns, as AVs collect vast amounts of data that could be misused.

Data Protection and Privacy

The digital age has ushered in unprecedented levels of data generation and collection, significantly raising concerns about data protection and privacy. As individuals increasingly rely on digital platforms for various aspects of their lives, from social interactions to financial transactions, the amount of personal information being shared and stored online has grown exponentially. This development necessitates robust legal frameworks to protect individuals' privacy and ensure their data is handled responsibly. Tort law, traditionally focused on physical and reputational harm, must evolve to address the unique challenges posed by data breaches and the misuse of personal information.[13]

In India, the landscape of data protection and privacy is governed primarily by the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its subsequent amendments. However, the rise in cyber threats and data breaches has highlighted the limitations of existing regulations. Tort law, with its principles of negligence and strict liability, offers a pathway to address harms caused by data breaches. For instance, if a company fails to implement adequate security measures and a data breach occurs, exposing personal information, affected individuals could potentially seek compensation under tort law for negligence. This approach, however, requires clear legal standards for what constitutes reasonable data protection practices.

The misuse of personal information, such as unauthorized data sharing or selling, also presents significant privacy concerns. Tort law can play a crucial role in holding entities accountable for such actions, emphasizing the right to privacy as a fundamental human right. The landmark Supreme Court ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, which recognized the right to privacy as a constitutionally protected right, sets a critical precedent. This decision reinforces the need for robust legal protections against privacy infringements, supporting tort claims for damages caused by unauthorized use of personal data.

Looking ahead, the development of comprehensive data protection legislation, such as the proposed Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, is essential to strengthen the legal framework in India. This legislation aims to establish clear guidelines for data processing, enhance individuals' control over their personal information, and impose stringent penalties for data breaches and misuse. Integrating these principles with tort law will provide a more cohesive and effective approach to protecting data privacy. By adapting to the evolving digital landscape, tort law can ensure that individuals' rights are safeguarded and that entities are held accountable for failing to protect personal information adequately.

Data Breaches and Liability

When a data breach occurs, determining liability involves a meticulous examination of the roles and responsibilities of data controllers and processors. Data controllers, the entities that determine the purposes and means of processing personal data, and data processors, the entities that handle the data on behalf of the controllers, must both implement adequate measures to protect the data they manage.

Liability arises if it is found that these entities failed to adhere to established data protection standards. For instance, if a data controller neglects to enforce encryption protocols or a data processor fails to comply with secure data handling practices, they can be held liable for the breach. Identifying the liable party requires analyzing the contractual agreements between controllers and processors and the specific obligations each party had regarding data security.[14]

Negligence is a critical factor in establishing liability for data breaches. To hold an entity liable for negligence, it must be demonstrated that they failed to exercise reasonable care in protecting personal data. This involves assessing whether the entity implemented appropriate security measures, conducted regular vulnerability assessments, and responded adequately to potential threats. If a data breach occurs because the entity did not follow industry-standard security practices, such as using outdated software or ignoring security patches, they may be deemed negligent.

The negligence standard requires proving that the entity's failure directly caused the data breach and the subsequent harm suffered by individuals. By establishing negligence, affected parties can seek compensation for damages, reinforcing the need for stringent data protection practices and accountability in the digital age.

Legal Framework in India
India's legal framework for data protection is undergoing significant transformation to address the growing challenges associated with the digital age. Historically, data protection in India has been governed primarily by the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its accompanying rules. However, recognizing the limitations of this framework, the Indian government has introduced the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, aimed at establishing a comprehensive legal structure for data protection and privacy. This bill, once enacted, is expected to significantly enhance the protection of personal data and impose stringent obligations on entities handling such data.

Key Features of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019

• Consent: A cornerstone of the Personal Data Protection Bill is the emphasis on individual consent for data collection and processing. Under the bill, personal data can only be processed if the data principal (the individual whose data is being collected) provides explicit consent. This consent must be informed, specific, clear, and free, ensuring that individuals are fully aware of how their data will be used. The bill mandates that entities collecting data must provide comprehensive information about the purposes of data collection, the nature of data processing, and the entities with whom the data may be shared. This approach empowers individuals by giving them greater control over their personal information and ensuring transparency in data processing activities.
   
• Right to be Forgotten: The right to be forgotten is another significant feature of the Personal Data Protection Bill. This right allows individuals to request the deletion of their personal data when it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected or when the individual withdraws consent. The bill outlines specific conditions under which this right can be exercised, balancing the individual's privacy interests with the public's right to access information. This provision aims to enhance individuals' control over their digital footprints and mitigate the long-term impact of personal data being accessible indefinitely on the internet.
  • Case Laws:
    • K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2017: One of the significant developments in this area was the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others in 2017. This case laid the foundation for recognizing the importance of data privacy and individual autonomy in India.
    • Google LLC v. Visakha Industries 2018: In 2018, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Google LLC v. Visakha Industries and Another, directed Google to de-index certain web pages that contained allegedly defamatory content. While this case did not explicitly recognize the right to be forgotten, it did provide some guidance on how the courts in India may approach issues related to data privacy and online content.
       
• Data Protection Authority: To ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of data protection laws, the Personal Data Protection Bill proposes the establishment of a Data Protection Authority (DPA). The DPA will be responsible for overseeing compliance with the provisions of the bill, investigating data breaches, and taking enforcement actions against entities that violate data protection norms. The authority will have the power to issue guidelines, conduct audits, and impose penalties for non-compliance. By creating a dedicated regulatory body, the bill seeks to provide robust oversight and accountability, fostering a culture of data protection and privacy in India.
  • Draft of MeitY: In 2019, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) released a draft of the Personal Data Protection Bill, which includes provisions related to the right to be forgotten. The bill recognizes the right of individuals to have their personal data erased in certain circumstances, including when the data is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected, or if the individual withdraws their consent for the data to be processed.

Conclusion
The impact of technological developments on tort law in India is profound and multifaceted, presenting both opportunities and challenges in safeguarding rights and ensuring accountability. The liability of internet service providers (ISPs) and social media platforms for defamation has underscored the need for balanced regulations that protect freedom of expression while holding intermediaries accountable for harmful content. Legal precedents, such as those addressing the responsibilities of ISPs in cases like MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., highlight the complexities of applying traditional tort principles to digital interactions.

Moreover, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous vehicles (AVs) has introduced novel legal complexities. AI's autonomous decision-making capabilities challenge established notions of liability, prompting debates on whether existing tort principles like negligence and strict liability adequately address the risks posed by AI systems. Similarly, AVs raise questions about accident liability and regulatory oversight, requiring robust frameworks that balance innovation with public safety.

In response to these challenges, India is poised to adapt its legal frameworks through initiatives like the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, which aims to establish comprehensive guidelines for data protection and privacy. By addressing consent requirements, the right to be forgotten, and the establishment of a Data Protection Authority, India seeks to strengthen protections against data breaches and misuse while fostering a supportive environment for technological advancement.

As India navigates the intersection of law and technology, there is a clear imperative to foster dialogue among stakeholders, including policymakers, legal experts, industry leaders, and civil society, to ensure that legal frameworks evolve in step with technological advancements. By fostering innovation while upholding fundamental rights and responsibilities, India can position itself as a leader in shaping a balanced and effective legal framework that meets the challenges of the digital age.

References:

1. Law and Technology: Technological Developments and the Impact on Society by P. Ishwara Bhat
2. Journal Article: Technology and Tort Law in India: The Evolving Jurisprudence
3. Defamation Law in India: An Overview by V.S. Desai
4. Journal Article: The Role and Responsibility of ISPs and Social Media Platforms in Defamation Cases
5. Case Law: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
6. Artificial Intelligence and Law: New Horizons in Research, Regulation, and Legal Practice
7. Journal Article: Legal Challenges of Autonomous Vehicles in India
8. Report: Emerging Technologies and the Law: The Indian Context by the National Law School of India University
9. Information Technology Act, 2000
10. Judicial Pronouncements and Commentaries on Tort Law in India

End Notes:

1. Roger Brownsword, Eloise Scotford, and Karen Yeung (Eds.), "Regulating Autonomous Vehicles: A Global Comparative Perspective" (Hart Publishing, 2020).
2. William P. Statsky, "Torts: Personal Injury Litigation" (Cengage Learning, 2020), p. 3.
3. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 229
4. "Defamation Law in India: An Overview" by V.S. Desai
5. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
6. Information Technology Act, 2000
7. MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., Year 2016
8. Challenges of Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Tort Law: A Review
9. Mark Lunney, Ken Oliphant, and Donal Nolan, Tort Law: Text and Materials, 6th Edition (Oxford University Press, 2017).
10. Mark Lunney, Ken Oliphant & Donal Nolan, Tort Law: Text and Materials 456 (6th ed. 2017).
11. Bryant Walker Smith, Automated Driving and Product Liability, 2017 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1, 12-20 (2017).
12. David G. Owen, Products Liability Law 47 (3d ed. 2021).
13. Solove, D.J., & Schwartz, P.M. (2020). Information Privacy Law. Aspen Publishers.
14. Daniel J. Solove & Woodrow Hartzog, The FTC and the New Common Law of Privacy, 114 Colum. L. Rev. 583, 600-605 (2014).