#e4mExclusive:  Landing pages inflate ratings: BARC backs MIB in Kerala HC

The Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) India has thrown its weight behind the Centre in the Kerala High Court, arguing that the interim stay on implementation of the TV Ratings Policy 2026 provision excluding landing-page viewership from television ratings should be vacated as it undermines the integrity of India's television audience measurement system.

In a counter-affidavit filed before the Kerala High Court on July 9, BARC has supported the Union government's application seeking vacation of the interim order passed on May 22, which had kept in abeyance the implementation of Clause 5.4.1 of the TV Ratings Policy 2026. The clause provides that viewership arising out of a landing page shall not be counted in television audience measurement, while allowing landing pages to continue as a marketing tool.

The affidavit comes in the writ petition filed by the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) challenging the policy, contending that excluding landing-page viewership would adversely impact the cable television distribution ecosystem.

BARC says it has no commercial stake

BARC described itself as a neutral, technical body responsible for television audience measurement and said it has no commercial interest in how channels are placed by distribution platform operators.

"The sole institutional interest is that the ratings it publishes are an accurate and credible measure of what viewers genuinely watch," the rating agency stated, adding that it had been impleaded only because it would operationalise the methodology prescribed under the policy.

BARC argued that the interim order was granted without the benefit of the complete factual and technical background and was based primarily on the contention that the issue was already pending before the Supreme Court.

According to the rating agency, continuing the stay frustrates a duly notified policy framed in public interest.

Landing page creates 'forced viewing'

At the heart of BARC's defence is its argument that landing-page exposure cannot be treated as genuine audience choice.

The affidavit explains that a landing page is the television channel automatically displayed when a subscriber switches on the set-top box, exposing viewers to content before they actively select any channel.

BARC said studies conducted under its Data Validation Quality Initiative, launched in 2019, found that landing pages artificially inflate television ratings, particularly benefiting niche and smaller channels. Based on those findings, it introduced its automated Landing Page Algorithm in September 2020 to mitigate such distortions.

The organisation further argued that excluding passive or forced exposure from audience measurement is an internationally accepted principle.

According to the affidavit, the TV Ratings Policy merely adopts this principle categorically by excluding all landing-page viewership instead of relying on algorithmic adjustments.

"The Policy declines to treat platform-generated, non-genuine exposure as genuine viewer choice," BARC submitted.

Policy regulates measurement, not channel placement

BARC maintained that the impugned provision has been misunderstood by the petitioners.

It argued that the policy neither bans nor restricts landing pages and does not interfere with broadcasters or cable operators placing channels on boot-up screens.

Instead, it regulates only how television ratings are calculated.

The affidavit emphasised that landing pages remain fully available as a promotional and marketing tool, but viewership generated merely because a channel appears automatically should not be counted while calculating television ratings.

Writ petition not maintainable

BARC has also raised a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the writ petition itself.

It argued that courts cannot sit in appeal over technical policy choices relating to audience measurement methodology unless such policies violate statutory provisions, constitutional guarantees or are manifestly arbitrary.

The affidavit cites several Supreme Court judgments, including BALCO Employees' Union v Union of India, State of Punjab v Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Narmada Bachao Andolan v State of Madhya Pradesh, to argue that courts cannot substitute one scientific methodology with another merely because an alternative appears preferable.

According to BARC, the petitioners are essentially seeking judicial endorsement of their preferred measurement technique over another.

No infringement of business rights

Responding to AIDCF's reliance on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, BARC argued that the policy imposes no restriction whatsoever on the cable industry's business operations.

Cable operators, broadcasters and distribution platform operators remain free to use landing pages and monetise them commercially, it said.

The only consequence is that artificially generated exposure will no longer be reflected in television ratings.

"There is no fundamental right to have platform-generated, non-genuine exposure counted as genuine viewership," BARC submitted, arguing that any reduction in commercial attractiveness of landing pages is merely an incidental economic consequence rather than a constitutional infringement.

The rating agency further argued that the dispute is fundamentally commercial in nature since the petitioners' grievance relates to the reduced commercial value of landing-page placements rather than any violation of legal rights.

Supreme Court case not applicable

One of BARC's principal submissions concerns the petitioners' reliance on pending proceedings before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6001-6003 of 2019 concerning TRAI's earlier attempt to regulate landing-page placement.

BARC contended that the Supreme Court proceedings are entirely different from the present dispute.

According to the affidavit, the TDSAT judgment challenged before the apex court dealt only with whether the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India had statutory authority to prohibit placement of television channels on landing pages.

The tribunal had expressly declined to examine whether landing pages distort television ratings or whether corrective measures were justified.

Therefore, BARC argued, the Supreme Court appeal concerns only TRAI's jurisdiction and not audience measurement methodology.

The affidavit further states that the Supreme Court's interim order merely restrained TRAI from enforcing its placement directions and did not prohibit the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting from framing a television audience measurement policy.

Accordingly, BARC submitted that the Kerala High Court's interim stay proceeds on a "false equivalence" between channel placement and television ratings methodology.

Distinction already recognised by Delhi HC

BARC also relied on previous judicial decisions to reinforce the distinction between channel placement and audience measurement.

It referred to the Delhi High Court's 2020 order in Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs BARC India, where the court declined to restrain BARC's own Landing Page Algorithm, observing that TRAI's powers over channel placement were distinct from BARC's authority to determine audience measurement methodology.

The affidavit also cited a subsequent TDSAT order holding that BARC's measurement methodology fell outside TRAI's regulatory jurisdiction, reinforcing that audience measurement occupies a separate legal field from channel carriage and placement.

Algorithm and policy share same objective

Addressing the petitioners' argument that BARC's existing Landing Page Algorithm already addressed the issue, the rating agency said the policy and the algorithm pursue the same objective — eliminating forced viewership from ratings.

BARC argued that its earlier technical recommendation, including discussions around a two-minute exclusion window, was merely advisory and could not bind the government's policy-making powers.

Once the Centre adopted a categorical rule under the TV Ratings Policy 2026, BARC became duty-bound to implement it.

The agency also argued that a categorical exclusion offers greater certainty, transparency, auditability and protection against manipulation than algorithmic adjustments.

Public interest favours implementation

BARC finally argued that the balance of convenience strongly favours lifting the interim stay.

It said cable operators would suffer no irreparable injury because they remain free to continue using landing pages as a marketing tool.

However, continuing to include landing-page exposure in ratings causes lasting harm to the television advertising ecosystem by inflating audience data through non-voluntary viewing.

The affidavit also notes that BARC had already completed ecosystem consultations, subscriber communications, webinars and implementation preparations before complying with the High Court's interim order.

The agency stated that it is fully prepared to operationalise the revised methodology immediately if permitted by the court.

BARC has therefore urged the Kerala High Court to allow the Union government's interlocutory application, vacate the interim order dated May 22, permit implementation of Clause 5.4.1 of the TV Ratings Policy 2026 pending adjudication of the writ petition, and hold that the pending Supreme Court proceedings concerning TRAI's jurisdiction do not bar enforcement of the Centre's audience measurement policy.