TRP Regulation in India: Law, Policy, and the 2025 Reforms

INTRODUCTION

In July 2025,the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued new TRP guidelines, marking a promising approach to the audience measurement in India. This move is brought into public discussion not only because of the proposed amendments but also because of the lessons learnt from past experiences with this. TRP’s have long been the primary metric for valuing India's television advertising market, dictating which channels secure prime advertising slots . It is a reflection of viewers' choices and preferences, providing insights into which programs are watched and are engaging for the audience. As it is a conventional method of audience measurement, there is a vital need for various reforms in its policy and regulations. The need for this immediate reform has been expounded by various controversial involvement over the years. One such notable scandal was the 2020 Mumbai TRP scam[1] which revealed deeper structural issues in the way audience measurement operates measured by BARC. What may appear as a mere viewership inflation is in fact a very crucial legal problem.  This creates a distortion in the advertising market, raising concerns under the Competition Act, 2002. Also, when we are dominated by various media, the TRP system itself is being outdated, leaving a policy vacuum for integrating or converging , various media.  Notably, the advertisers, the very stakeholders who fund the industry, are left exposed , with limited legal recourse available when misled by manipulated ratings . To address these overlooked issues  it requires punitive action and calls for reformation in the very system, which can be achieved by strengthening regulation and updating media policy. That is, the reform must be preventive in nature , rather than arising only in response to adverse outcomes.

Understanding TRPs: Why television Ratings Still Matter

Target Rating Points (TRPs) represent the proportion of the target audience that an advertising campaign reaches, multiplied by the frequency of exposure.[2] In simple terms, it is a metric that is used to measure viewership of channels or the metric used by the marketing and advertising agents to evaluate viewership. They are not only significant to broadcasters and advertisers but is also important for the consumers who are at the ultimate end of media . In India, this rating is measured by BARC [3]an industry body jointly owned by advertisers, advertising agencies, and broadcasting companies which the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting registered back in 2015 to carry out the TV ratings in India. The TRAI has no statutory TRP setting power and acts only in an advisory capacity. BARC India itself was established in accordance with TRAI's recommendations and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting[4].

Legal and Commercial Ramifications of TRP Manipulation: The 2020 Mumbai TRP Scam

The vulnerabilities in the system were put to the forefront through major cases the most scandalous being the 2020 Mumbai TRP Scam , whereby some of the mainstream channels were questioned on their integrity as the core allegation revolved around a scheme where channels allegedly inflated their ratings by bribing low-income individuals,  to keep their television sets tuned to specific channels on dual frequencies in violation of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India norms[5].  Here the confidential data about panel homes were revealed by the Hansa Research , the market research agency that collects the data. This not only compelled advertisers into rechannelling crores of ad spending but also painted an inaccurate picture of competition among TV channels. Scandals like the 2020 Mumbai TRP scam revealed how easily these ratings could be fudged, raising not just questions of media ethics but of market fairness and regulation as well.

The Bombay High Court, while hearing the writ appeals of Republic TV against the Mumbai Police investigation, held that criminal law provisions (cheating, breach of trust, criminal conspiracy)[6] were rightly invoked. But it refused to stop the investigation, exercising judicial deference to the investigation process. The incident also led to broader policy debates, with a Parliamentary Committee on IT holding that TRPs are "easily manipulated" and "outdated".The Committee recommended that the Cable Television Networks Act, 1995 shall be amended and also suggested setting up of a Media Council or Commission  to cover all aspects to regulate cross-platform ratings[7]. Also ,The spillover was swift, with a country-wide case involving the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the arrest of several top executives.

In an attempt to catch up and regain credibility in a reactive manner, BARC suspended the publication of weekly ratings for news channels for a brief period[8]. This criminal probe, while necessary to take the guilty to book, was primarily concentrated on establishing bribery and conspiracy. The victims of the commercial fraud—the advertisers who paid for artificially inflated viewership—remained largely without a clear civil or commercial solution. This case, in fact, exposes a massive regulatory lacuna. TRP manipulation is harmful to the competitive market place but goes unchecked because of the fragmented regulatory power conferred on the competition regulators and the sector regulators in India's legal structure. This uncertainty denies advertisers and authentic broadcasters full remedies, which highlights the urgent need for an integrated regulatory structure.

Also in Sudarshan News (UPSC Jihad case), the Supreme Court criticized the TRP-driven competition in sensationalising electronic media, observing that "the problem with electronic media is all about TRPs, resulting in more and more sensationalism that harms the reputation of individuals"[9]. This goes to show how TRP pressures are not market or regulatory issues only but also intrude into constitutional interests in free speech and fair journalism.

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995[10], is a general legislative code for regulation of cable television networks, addressing issues like mandatory registration, programming code, and technical standards. But an anomaly of the legal landscape is the absence of a specific, standalone law for the regulation of television audience measurement. The industry's core statute, the Cable Television Networks Act, addresses the dissemination of content but has no express provisions on methodology of audience measurement or the legal consequences of its manipulation. This means that the entire system of TRPs, from the process of registration to enforcement provisions, is on the basis of a policy paper and not a formal act of Parliament. This application of an administrative policy framework, as opposed to a hard statutory framework, can make the system vulnerable to legal challenge and overburdens the MIB's administrative control with excessive burden.

 

Competition Act 2002: Implications for TRP Regulation in India

Television Rating Points (TRPs) are a vital industry measure that forms the basis of advertisement revenue distribution in the broadcasting industry. The manipulation of TRPs has repercussions that go beyond being ethically wrong to include legal repercussions in that it affects the fair competitive landscape in the market. This is where competition law becomes relevant.

Two sections of the Competition Act, 2002[11] are of particular applicability. Section 3 prohibits agreements which have an appreciable adverse effect on competition. If there is collusion among broadcasters, advertising companies, or intermediaries to manipulate TRPs, it may amount to an anti-competitive agreement. Or else, Section 4 prohibits abuse of a dominant position. A ratings agency like BARC which enjoys a monopoly of measuring TRPs in India can be considered a dominant one, and if it manipulates numbers or indulges in discriminatory practices, such actions can be brought within the ambit of Section 4[12].

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has also addressed similar issues in the past. In Prasar Bharati v. TAM Media Research (2006)[13], the CCI recognized TAM’s dominance but found no abuse and closed the proceedings , observing that issues like  small sample size, rural audience exclusion, and differential pricing practice were data quality concerns rather than competition law violations. Likewise, in R. Gunasekaran v. BARC (2021),[14] BARC's manipulation of Television Rating Points (TRPs) and conspiracy with channels were alleged, which were said to be a Section 3 and Section 4 violation. Although the CCI later closed the case for lack of evidence, it made a relevant observation: TRPs are the "key parameter " used in ad negotiations, which means that any manipulation of the same reflects on competition in the advertising business.

Also Following the 2020 scandal, a complaint was filed with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against BARC, alleging a "contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act"[15]. The complaint asserted that BARC had colluded with a private news channel to manipulate TRPs, a classic Section 3 anti-competitive agreement, and had abused its dominant market position as the sole ratings provider, a violation of Section 4. The CCI, however, chose to dismiss the case under Section 26(2) of the Act, stating that the matter "did not require further examination" because BARC had already filed a criminal complaint and was assisting law enforcement agencies. This decision therefore highlights a crucial jurisdictional and legal paradox as CCI’s rationale of avoiding a parallel investigation raises the question of whether a  criminal enquiry targeting individual wrongdoing should be considered a substitute for a competition law probe.

Beyond Television: Digital Media and Decline of TRPs

Any meaningful analysis of audience measurement in India must first grapple with the limitation of TRP system itself. As it was designed for an earlier era of TV dominance, TRPs today suffer from regulatory gaps and ethical concerns.

Sampling Limitations

A primary concern in the existing TRP measurement in India is the miniscule sample size that is used to capture viewership data. There's approximately 230 million TV households in India, out of which only 58,000 people's meters are currently used in audience measurement, representing a mere 0.025% of total TV homes[16]. So this extremely small size is insufficient to accurately reflect the diverse viewing habit of a country like India.

Credibility Crises & Manipulation

Beyond this limitation in sampling, the system has been marred by credibility crises , the notable being the 2020 Mumbai TRP scam[17]. Practices like this can undermine advertiser confidence and is likely to create unfair competition among broadcasters.

Outdated Universe Estimates

Also, the universe estimates for TV households are still based on outdated census 2011, which does not reflect current demographical shifts[18]. They are crucial not only because they  determine sample size and distribution panels but also equally significant to advertisers to make informed decisions about where to invest their advertising budgets .

Governance Concerns

Also, the structural composition of BARC board also contains an inherent conflict of interest as its own self-governance model contains a flaw that the 60% representation of broadcasters' (IBDF) means that the primary beneficiary of high TRP ratings holds a majority vote share in the organization responsible for generating this rating ,creating risk that such commercial interest could unduly influence the measurement process.

Urban Bias

Additionally, the system has been heavily criticized  for being biased towards urban areas, failing to give equal weightage to rural and semi-urban viewership[19].

Monopoly & Lack of Innovation

Also, the historical monopoly of BARC in television audience measure has resulted in less technological variation, detached from dynamic market realities . Thus, this singular currency system leaves this measurement vulnerable to manipulation. Instances of bribing households to tune into specific channels, and issues related to ' landing pages' where channels are set as default upon TV switch-on highlight those vulnerabilities leading to disruption of advertiser trust[20].

Lack of an integrated audience measurement mechanism

Equally significant is the failure of TRPs to adapt to digital transformation of media consumption[21]. As TRPs are restricted only to linear TVs, i.e. cable TV and DTH, there is an explosion of rapidly increasing sharing platforms like over-the-top OTT and connected TV devices. This approach leaves a vast proportion of contemporary viewing habits unaccounted, which does not reflect the realities of India media competition. The digital transformation in India has fundamentally reshaped television viewership, rendering traditional TRP metrics increasingly inadequate.  According to the Pitch Madison Advertising Report 2025[22], CTV advertising in India grew significantly by almost 35 per cent in 2024, reaching an estimated market size of close to Rs 1,500 crore.

The growth reflects the increasing adoption of Connected TV platforms and their relevance as a medium for advertisers. The report projects that by the end of 2025, there will be 50-60 million CTV households in India, with CTV ad revenue expected to reach Rs 2,300-2,500 crore. Hence there is a vital need of a mechanism that can provide audience measurement in  rising convergent media platforms.

Absence of a statutory framework

The absence of a specific  law has hampered efforts to penalize any actions of fraud committed through these framework. In the 2018 consultation paper, TRAI remarked: “One of the biggest challenges has been the absence of any specific law through which the agents/ suspects involved in panel tampering/infiltration could be penalised.

Regulatory design and cross holding restrictions

Existing rules prevent broadcasters or advertisers from investing in rating agencies , limiting competition and entry of alternative players , which strengthens BARC’s de facto monopoly and reduces responsibility.

The Path Forward: Analysing the Proposed 2025 Reforms

In    July 2025 in response to these systemic failures, the MIB has released a draft of the "TV Rating Guidelines 2025,"[23] which proposed promising reforms. The 2014 guidelines required TRP agencies to be registered under the Companies Act ,1956 , while 2025 draft updated this to mandate registration under the Companies Act,2013.[24] This new policy is a direct attempt to modernize the framework and meet the evolving landscape. The key provisions of the new guidelines include:

●      Removal of Entry Barriers: The draft proposes to delete restrictive clauses, specifically 1.5 and 1.7, that had previously acted as significant barriers to entry for new players in the market[25]. The rephrasing of Clause 1.4 now focuses on preventing conflicts of interest, instead of  imposing a general ban on ancillary activities like consultancy. This is a strategic move to foster a competitive ecosystem with multiple rating agencies.

●      Technological Integration: The new guidelines also mandate the inclusion of viewership data from connected devices, smart TVs, and streaming platforms ^. by removing several restrictive clauses ,including cross-holding rules and board eligibility restrictions but does not itself add a specific new clause that mandates how connected -device data must be included  .This change is a vital step toward creating a truly representative and efficient measurement system that have the potential to capture India’s modern media consumption habits.

●      Democratizing Investment: By deleting cross-holding and board eligibility restrictions , the draft would permit broadcasters , advertisers and related stakeholders to invest in rating agencies and this provision aims to democratize the investment process, foster a more collaborative ecosystem, and provide the financial support needed for technological upgrades and infrastructure expansion ensuring an  inclusive environment.

●      Panel Size   : The draft highlights the limited coverage of current people-meter panels and the need for a more representative system , but the short amendment does not itself set a new panel size target .However it signals the need for a more representative system a point emphasized by government statements and industry commentators.

These proposed changes are understood as the government's effort to enhance the credibility of TV ratings, particularly in response to past scandals like the TRP scam. To address these deficiencies ,the draft amendments propose replacing stringent clauses that restrict advisory roles and confine broadcasters or advertisers from investing in rating agencies. By fostering a more competitive environment , government hopes to facilitate technology upgrades, enhance data accuracy, and ensure trp outcomes better reflect evolving audience preferences[26].

Future of Audience Measurement

The MIB seeks to liberalize the audience measurement market, to introduce more players, to increase transparency, and to promote the use of superior technology. There is increasing demand for "multi-currency models," the kind used in more advanced media economies such as the US and Singapore, where there are several measurement providers.  A dynamic system requires bringing together data from multiple sources, ranging from Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) technology built into smart TVs by Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)[27], through to data from DPOs, and the qualitative panels.

Return Path Data (RPD) collected from set-top boxes (STBs) is identified as a viable solution to expand panel size by large numbers without proportional cost increases[28]. Indian operators, including Tata Sky and Airtel, have started collecting this data at the STB level; however, they do not yet pass the data on to BARC[29]. Despite this, acceptance of RPD is restrained, especially in privacy issues, and requires strong regulatory support to compel sharing of data from digital platform operators and TV original equipment manufacturers. International models, including Médiamétrie's dual-panel model in France[30] and Auditel's "Total Audience"[31] model in Italy, provide successful hybrid models that combine panel data with census-based research and multi-device measurement to measure viewership across platforms in depth.

Learning from the world: Global models of Audience Measurement

For many years, audience measurement has been the backbone of media industries globally, guiding programming decisions, advertising expenditure, and other broader market decisions. The Television Rating Point (TRP) system became the de facto measure in many markets when broadcast monopolies dominated the landscape. However the best global practices raises question of whether the  traditional audience measurement systems can adequately capture today's rapidly evolving media landscape[32]. The rise of multi-platform content consumption across linear television, streaming services, mobile devices and social media is forcing regulators, broadcasters, and advertisers to rethink how to measure,  and standardize audience measurement for planning of programming and advertising[33].

While countries around the world tried diverse audience measurement frameworks - technologically sophisticated methods such as use of people-meters and electronic return-path data in developed economies, and survey-based hybrid systems in emerging markets - the different approaches generally came to a universal issue - to the question of how to ensure that audience measurement is robust, transparent, and accountable. For India, where the TRP system has long suffered criticisms regarding its small sample size[34], its often manipulated results[35], and its invisibility to cross-platform consumption[36], there are many lessons to be drawn from these international experiences.

The BARB (Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board) , which is a British organisation that compiles audience measurement and television ratings in the UK ,uses a hybrid methodology which combines people-meter panels with device census data to analyze  total viewing across broadcast, on-demand and online platforms [37].Similarly  the U.S. Nielsen system has expanded its ratings to include streaming (e.g. Nielsen ONE), though often still through multiple currencies (TV vs. digital)[38].

India though having a largest number of multi-platform  users ,at present, has no equivalent cross-platform metric. As one industry analysis notes, global media is advancing “platform-agnostic” measurement with big-data and advanced meters[39], but India’s BARC still relies on antiquated clock-minute watermarking[40].

Key Lessons from global best practices

The regulatory experiences of the UK and US both offer useful lessons for India's reform of its TRP framework. The model in the UK achieves industry consensus, and is guided by a powerful, independent regulator  Ofcom[41]. The US experience shows us that competition in the audience measurement space is a viable alternative to a monopoly, with a regulator such as the FTC deterring market concentration[42].

Thus an ideal model for India could be a hybrid model, bringing together the best of both. There is the opportunity for reforms in India to enable competition, with multiple ratings agencies with reputable and genuinely representative joint industry body that is transparent, democratic, best practice model for the industry . The importance of the government, as seen with the MIB/TRAI, is to ensure the framework is fair, solid, and technology relevant .

CONCLUSION

India’s television audience measurement system is entering a transformative phase, with the 2025 Draft Guidelines, TRAI’s recommendations, and MIB’s reforms laying the foundation for a more transparent, technology-driven, and accountable framework. By expanding panel representativeness, integrating digital and connected TV data, and strengthening governance through independent audits, these measures promise to restore advertiser confidence and safeguard viewer interests. While the absence of a statutory framework remains a challenge, the momentum of reform reflects a clear commitment to align India’s system with global best practices. If pursued with consistency and collaboration, these reforms can not only curb manipulation but also position India as a leader in modern, cross-platform audience measurement.

Author: - Aadithya S.S, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

NOTES:

[1] Mohamed Thaver, TRP Fraud Case: Police File 1,400-Page Chargesheet, Indian Express (Nov. 25, 2020), https://indianexpress.com/article/india/trp-fraud-case-police-file-1-400-page-chargesheet-7064495/  ( Mumbai 2020 trp scam.

[2] George E. Belch & Michael A. Belch, Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective (11th ed. McGraw-Hill Educ. 2017)George E. Belch & Michael A. Belch, Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective (11th ed. McGraw-Hill Educ. 2017)

[3] Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India (2014); Broadcast Audience Research Council India, Statement on Suspension of News Channel Ratings (Oct. 2020).

[4] Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Recommendations on Television Audience Measurement and Ratings in India (2020)

[5] Mumbai Police Bust TRP Scam; Republic TV Named, Times of India (Oct. 8, 2020), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/78696131.cms ; Hansa Research Group, Statement on TRP Manipulation and FIR Filing (Oct. 2020).

[6] Indian Penal Code ,S 120 B ,417 ,406 (1860)

[7] Hindustan Times, TRPs Can Be Easily Manipulated, Parliamentary Panel Says (Oct. 2020); Mint, Parliamentary Panel Flags Flaws in TRP System, Calls for Overhaul (Oct. 2020); Times of India, TRP Method Not in Tune with Technology: IT Panel (Oct. 2020).

[8] TRP Scam: BARC Temporarily Suspends Weekly Ratings of News Channels, New Indian Express (Oct. 15, 2020), https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/oct/15/trp-scam-barc-temporarily-suspends-weekly-ratings-of-news-channels-2210568.html ; ; Fake TRP Scam: BARC Suspends Rating of News Channels for 3 Months, Times of India (Oct. 15, 2020), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/fake-trp-scam-barc-suspends-rating-of-news-channels-for-3-months/articleshow/78676896.cms

[9] Sudarshan News Channel v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 1  (Supreme Court observing TRP-driven sensationalism as damaging to reputations and journalistic ethics).

[10] Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 - IJNRD, https://www.ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2408193.pdf,THE CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS (REGULATION) ACT, 1995 ACT NO. 7 OF 1995 - India Code

[11] The Competition Act ,2002

[12] CCI Dismisses the Information Filed Against Broadcast Audience Research Council Under Section 26(2) of the Act, AZB & Partners (Nov. 23, 2021), https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/cci-dismisses-the-information-filed-against-broadcast-audience-research-council-under-section-262-of-the-act/

[13] Prasar Bharati v. TAM Media Research Pvt. Ltd., Case No. 70 of 2012 (CCI Feb. 25, 2016) (rural under-representation of TV ratings

[14] R. Gunasekaran v. Broadcast Audience Research Council, Case No. 11 of 2021 (CCI Nov. 23, 2021) (closure under Section 26(2) of allegations of TRP manipulation

[15] CCI Dismisses the Information Filed against Broadcast Audience https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/cci-dismisses-the-information-filed-against broadcast-audience-research-council-under-section-262-of-the-act/ (contravention of s3 and 4)

[16] India's TRP ecosystem needs a reset. Time to end BARC monopoly - ThePrint, https://theprint.in/opinion/indias-trp-ecosystem-needs-a-reset-time-to-end-barc-monopoly/2696844/

[17]Supra note 5

[18]Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Consultation Paper on Review of Television Audience Measurement and Ratings in India (Apr. 28, 2020).

[19] Telecom Regulatory Auth. of India, Recommendations on Review of Television Audience Measurement (2020), https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Recommendation _28042020.pdf  

[20] Press Trust of India, CBI Registers FIR in Fake TRP Scam Case, THE HINDU (Oct. 25, 2020), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cbi-registers-fir-in-fake-trp-scam-case/article32945587.ece  

[21] Ministry of Info. & Broad., Press Release, Entry Barriers Removed to Allow Multiple Agencies in Television Ratings Measurement, to Foster Healthy Competition, Bring in New Technologies and Align with Modern TV Viewing Habits (July 3, 2025), https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2141914 

[22] Pitch Madison Advertising Report 2025: AdEx Set to Grow by 11% in 2025, MXMINDIA (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.mxmindia.com/advertising/pitch-madison-report-adex-set-to-grow-by-11-in-2025

[23] Ministry of Info. & Broad., Press Release, Entry Barriers Removed to Allow Multiple Agencies in Television Ratings Measurement, to Foster Healthy Competition, Bring in New Technologies and Align with Modern TV Viewing Habits (July 3, 2025), https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2141914 

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Press Trust of India, Govt Releases Draft TV Rating Guidelines 2025 to Boost Credibility, DD News (July 12, 2025), https://ddnews.gov.in/national/govt-releases-draft-tv-rating-guidelines-2025-boost-credibility 

[27]  IAB Tech Lab, Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) Guidance (2024), https://iabtechlab.com/acr/  

[28] TRAI, Recommendations on Review of Television Audience Measurement and Rating in India (Apr. 28, 2020) (endorsing use of RPD from DPOs), https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/Recommendation _28042020.pdf

[29] BestMediaInfo, Audience Measurement Norms Eased: What Does It Mean for DTH & Cable Players? (July 23, 2025), https://bestmediainfo.com/2025/07/audience-measurement-norms-eased-what-does-it-mean-for-dth-cable-players  (last visited Aug. 20, 2025); see also BestMediaInfo, Govt May Bar Airtel from Releasing Return Path Data (Mar. 17, 2022), https://bestmediainfo.com/2022/03/government-may-bar-airtel-from-releasing-return-path-data

[30] Médiamétrie, Cross-Media (n.d.) (combined TV & internet panels), https://www.mediametrie.fr/en/cross- media  

[31] Auditel (Italy), Total Audience (n.d.) (hybrid panel + census/device approach), https://www.auditel.it/english/total-audience/

[32] Ofcom, Media Nations: UK 2024 (Sept. 2024), https://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms-groups/research/data/multi-sector-data-research/media-nations 

[33]  world Federation of Advertisers (WFA), Cross-Media Measurement: An Update on HALO (Mar. 4, 2025), https://wfanet.org/knowledge/item/2025/03/04/Cross-Media-Measurement -Update-on-HALO  

[34] Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (India), Notice Seeking Comments on TRP (July 2, 2025) (draft amendments deleting Cls. 1.5 & 1.7; amending Cls. 1.1 & 1.4), https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-07/notice-seeking-comments -on-trp.pdf

[35] Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,Press Information Bureau, MIB (India), Government Allows Resumption of Audience Measurement for TV News Ratings (Jan. 12, 2022), https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID =1790358  

[36]  Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Recommendations on Review of Television Audience Measurement and Rating in India (Apr. 28, 2020), https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/Recommendation _28042020.pdf

[37]  BARB, How We Do It (n.d.), https://barb.co.uk/what-we-do/how-we-do-it/

[38] Nielsen, Meet Nielsen ONE (Apr. 18, 2024), https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2024/meet-nielsen-one/ 

[39] Media Rating Council, Cross-Media Audience Measurement Standards v0.1 (May 7, 2024), https://mediaratingcouncil.org/cross-media-audience-measurement-standards-v0-1/ .U.S. Joint Industry Committee (OpenAP), Certification for Cross-Platform Video Currencies (2024), https://www.thejic.com/currencies 

[40] BARC India, BARC Methodology (technical overview incl. watermarking) (n.d.), https://assets.barbindia.co.in/barb-barindia-document/Methodology -document.pdf

[41] Ofcom, What Is Ofcom? (n.d.), https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/what-is-ofcom

[42] Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Puts Conditions on Nielsen’s Proposed Acquisition of Arbitron (Sept. 20, 2013), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2013/09/ftc-puts-conditions-nielsens-proposed-acquisition-arbitron-preventing-harm-emerging-cross-platform ;Fed. Trade Comm’n, Premerger Notification: Hart–Scott–Rodino Act (overview; merger enforcement), https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/antitrust-case-filings/premerger-notification-program