Synthetically Generated Information rules: How agencies are navigating accountability era

India’s decision to formally embed synthetically generated information (SGI) into the Information Technology Rules has done more than define deepfakes in legal language. It has reset the compliance architecture of the digital economy.

By mandating labelling, traceability and in certain cases removal of unlawful synthetic content within three hours, the government has shifted the debate from platform moderation to enforceable accountability. The implications are now cascading beyond social media companies to agencies, ad tech intermediaries and brands that depend on them.

At stake is the interpretation of safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act. On paper, the safe harbour remains intact. In practice, the operational threshold to retain it has tightened.

Probir Roy Chowdhury, Partner at JSA Advocates and Solicitors, says the change does not eliminate immunity but makes it more conditional. “Inclusion of SGI under the IT Rules will not automatically eliminate the safe harbour protection, but it undeniably makes it more conditional and compliance heavy. Safe harbour in India is operationally linked to demonstrable due diligence.” He estimates that litigation exposure for significant intermediaries could rise by 20 - 25 percent over the next 12 to 24 months, not necessarily because liability has expanded, but because the threshold for alleging non-compliance has lowered.

Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, agrees that the legal core of safe harbour has not been dismantled. “No, the IT Amendment Rules 2026 do not materially narrow safe harbour under Section 79(1), as proactive SGI measures like labelling or takedown do not disqualify immunity if due diligence is followed.” Yet he too anticipates friction, projecting a 15 - 25 percent rise in disputes, largely centred around interpretation of the three-hour mandate.

For platforms, that mandate is the most immediate flashpoint. For agencies, it may be the most disruptive.

When Moderation Becomes a Stopwatch

The three-hour takedown window signals that real-time moderation is no longer aspirational. It risks becoming a legal expectation.

Roy Chowdhury observes that compressed compliance timelines typically produce conservative moderation behaviour. “Platforms facing potential loss of safe harbour tend to err on the side of removal. That can increase the risk of over censorship.” He warns that if compliance leads to systematic over removal, constitutional challenges grounded in free speech principles could follow.

Razvi echoes that concern. “Yes, the 3-hour takedown timeline risks over censorship by incentivizing hasty automated removals, increasing wrongful takedowns of protected speech like satire misidentified as SGI.” Such cases, he suggests, could trigger Article 19 scrutiny even if platforms ultimately retain immunity for good faith action.

The business consequences extend beyond litigation risk. Agencies now find themselves operating in a regime where brand safety is inseparable from regulatory compliance.

Kartik Mehta, CBO and Head of Asia at Channel Factory, says the conversation has decisively shifted. “Brand safety issues go beyond brand reputation risk now, it is a compliance issue. Now legal teams will have a much larger role to play.”

The three-hour mandate, he adds, will force automation. “The mandate to remove unlawful content within 3 hours will force intermediaries to automate their detection tacks and tools.” Companies will need round the clock rapid response teams and enhanced moderation systems. While he stops short of assigning a percentage to rising legal provisioning, he acknowledges that compressed timelines demand structural investment.

The limitations of legacy tools are already visible. “The traditional safety tools are simple; they work on keywords and not understanding the context, just like how traditional brand safety tools couldn't differentiate between shots as a gunshot or 3 points shot in a basketball game,” Mehta explains. That blunt filtering historically led to over blocking and revenue leakage. Under SGI scrutiny, precautionary blocking could intensify, affecting margins in the interim.

“This may affect revenue and profit margins of the companies in the interim. To avoid penalties, platforms would start over blocking content too,” he says.

Agencies Face a Structural Reset

If platforms are rethinking moderation, agencies are rethinking workflow.

Yasin Hamidani, Director at Media Care Brand Solutions, estimates that agencies should anticipate a 5 - 12 percent rise in operational and technology linked costs in the initial phase of SGI integration. The increase will be directed towards monitoring tools, audit layers, documentation systems and training teams on compliance protocols. Larger networks may absorb this more smoothly, but mid-sized agencies will need deliberate investment to avoid exposure.

Hamidani says campaign planning cycles will not necessarily shorten but will become more layered. Compliance checkpoints will have to be embedded into creative approvals, media placements and influencer activations before campaigns go live. In the short term, turnaround may slow by a few days, particularly in high-risk categories. Over time, agencies will redesign servicing models using pre-approved frameworks and compliance templates to preserve speed without compromising safeguards.

Vishal Singh, Vice President for Agency and Advertiser Partnerships at Globale Media, sees the adjustment through the lens of operational maturity. “Agencies that are structurally sound will see a 5 - 8 percent cost adjustment. Agencies that have been operating loosely could see significantly more.”

He argues that SGI does not create cost so much as expose inefficiency. “If your inventory validation, reporting trails, and tech integrations were already robust, the impact is marginal. If they weren’t, this would feel uncomfortable.” In his view, the regulation functions as a stress test for governance standards that should have existed even before the amendment.

Singh also expects planning cycles to become more scrutinised rather than slower. “Yes, planning will become more layered, and that’s a good thing. The era of launch first, justify later is closing.” Over time, he believes automation will restore speed while preserving accountability. Client servicing, he suggests, will shift from reactive execution to governance led advisory, with CMOs increasingly seeking procedural confidence alongside performance.

The structural changes extend to internal metrics. Compliance performance, audit readiness and documented due diligence may become as critical as reach and ROI. The three-hour rule demands escalation protocols, documented evidence of action and traceable decision making.

Litigation Spike or Litigation Prevention

In the first year, lawyers expect a spike in notices and complaints linked to impersonation and deepfake content. Roy Chowdhury predicts an increase in intermediary notices and police complaints, even if not all translate into full litigation.

Arun Prabhu, Partner and Co Head of Digital and TMT at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, offers a more tempered forecast. “While the express definition of SGI and creation of specific obligations around SGI indicates greater regulatory focus on intermediaries, this may not be able to predict any increase in the trend on Litigation surrounding these matters.” He suggests that filtering and labelling could address impersonation and deepfake issues earlier in the lifecycle, mitigating disputes before they escalate.

The longer horizon is less certain. Abhishek Nangia, Counsel at SKV Law Offices, believes India’s SGI framework will act as a litmus test for digital governance across emerging markets. By mandating proactive technical measures such as permanent metadata and accelerated takedown windows, India has moved beyond reactive moderation into preventative architecture. Yet he anticipates friction. Constitutional challenges around privacy and free speech, and trade scrutiny if watermarking standards are viewed as technical barriers, could reshape implementation. In his assessment, the principle of SGI labelling is likely to endure, but extreme compliance timelines may be moderated through judicial review and trade diplomacy.

From Expansion to Discipline

Five years from now, most industry voices agree that SGI compliance will no longer be debated. It will be assumed.

Hamidani says SGI compliance could become as fundamental as data privacy did after GDPR. Once brands factor it into risk assessments and partner selection, it will shift from legal add on to operational standard. Agencies that integrate it early will treat it as routine hygiene rather than reactive firefighting.

Singh is more blunt about the structural shift underway. “Five years from now, this won’t even be a debate. SGI compliance will be a baseline expectation, like audited numbers or brand safety filters. You won’t get enterprise budgets without it.”

He frames the amendment as a correction in a market that expanded rapidly but did not always prioritise governance. “Indian digital advertising is entering its accountability era. Those built on structure will scale. Those built on shortcuts won’t.”

That framing captures the larger business signal embedded in the SGI rules. The amendment does not announce strict liability in statutory language. Safe harbour survives, provided due diligence is demonstrable. Yet the operational demands, compressed timelines and criminal linkages raise the cost of noncompliance significantly.

The next phase of digital growth in India may not be defined by scale alone. It may be defined by how quickly platforms and agencies can redesign their working patterns to align with a regulatory environment that rewards structure over speed and documentation over improvisation.

Safe harbour remains. But it now runs on a clock, and the ecosystem is adjusting to the sound of it ticking.