India’s streaming services publish a monthly grievance report meant to show how many content complaints they received and what they did about them. The August 2026 reports are less a transparency win than a data-quality warning.
MediaNama read 10 reports filed under Rule 18(3) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Across eight streaming platforms, 35 complaints were classified as relating to the Code of Ethics. Platforms agreed with seven. Netflix accounted for 20 such complaints and agreed with one; Amazon Prime Video agreed with six of 14; Apple disagreed with the single Code-of-Ethics complaint it classified.
The numbers that don’t match
Beyond the headline counts, several reports fail basic reconciliation:
- Ten reports use five different formats. Some services use a seven-row publisher table, others use a self-regulatory body form, one uses a news publisher format, and JioHotstar has no Code of Ethics classification at all.
- aha reported zero grievances in every intake row but still classified 12,932 complaints as not related to the Code of Ethics. Sun NXT reported 64 such classifications while ending the month with nothing pending.
- Amazon Prime Video’s disposals total 629, but its classification rows account for 627. JioHotstar lists eight received, seven disposed and three pending without an opening balance to reconcile the difference.
- Netflix’s report is published as an image, so the data cannot be searched or copied. SonyLIV’s table does not show which month it covers.
The basic test for any transparency disclosure is reconciliation: opening balance plus received should equal disposed plus pending, and the classification should sum to the dispositions. Several August reports fail that test.
Why this matters
These reports are the only public data on what Indian viewers object to in curated streaming content. For media planners and ad-supported platforms, complaint patterns are a useful proxy for content risk and brand-safety exposure. If the numbers cannot be compared across services, that signal is close to useless.
There is no central register, no ministry page pointing to each publisher’s report and no sign of audit. MediaNama found one report buried at page 11 of a terms document and another at page 23. One is served by country and shows nothing to readers outside India.
The legal layer
The compliance obligation itself remains contested. The Code of Ethics provisions in Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(3) were stayed by the Bombay High Court in August 2021, and constitutional challenges remain pending before the Delhi High Court, according to TMT Law Practice managing partner Abhishek Malhotra.
That leaves a strange position: platforms publish monthly accountability reports against a code whose binding force is before courts, in unprescribed formats, with unverified numbers. The maximum remedy a viewer may get is low: hoichoi describes outcomes such as changing an age rating, adding a disclaimer or editing a synopsis. SonyLIV excludes advertisements entirely.
MediaNama has sent questions to aha, Sun NXT, Amazon Prime Video, SonyLIV, JioHotstar, Netflix and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Until responses arrive, planners and analysts should treat these reports as unaudited signals, not verified measurement.
Source: MEDIANAMA
