On March 13, 2026, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released the draft “TCCCPR Third Amendment Regulations, 2026” (Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, Third Amendment), proposing a major expansion of its regulatory scope to cover A2P (Application-to-Person) commercial voice calls and OTT (Over-The-Top) communication applications. The draft introduces a number of new rules: a termination fee of up to 5 paise per minute will be imposed on A2P commercial calls to curb evasion practices where commercial calls are disguised as personal calls; entities using automated calling systems are required to declare their intended use in advance; operators must deploy the AI-powered “UCC Detect” system to identify and flag suspected unsolicited communications in real time; meanwhile, customer consent rules have been tightened, with the exemption allowing commercial communications to be sent on the basis of “prior transactions or inquiries” removed.
The most controversial part of the draft is the extended regulation of OTT platforms. References in the draft to regulating “call management applications or similar services” and “third-party applications” have been interpreted as an attempt to bring OTT messaging and calling apps such as WhatsApp under TRAI’s jurisdiction. Telecom operators have expressed support for the move — COAI and Reliance Jio noted that as SMS and voice channels come under increasingly strict control, over 80% of fraudulent and spam traffic has shifted to unregulated OTT platforms, creating “regulatory arbitrage” and unfair competition.
However, the internet and digital industry has pushed back strongly. The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) has warned that TRAI’s draft suffers from “jurisdictional overreach”. IAMAI pointed out that OTT platforms do not fall within the statutory definition of “telecommunication services” under the TRAI Act or the Telecommunications Act, 2023; provisions in the draft that would require TRAI to mandate data sharing or threaten safe harbor protections under the Information Technology Act may conflict with constitutional guarantees and the existing legal framework for data and IT. This controversy highlights the profound challenge of adapting traditional telecommunications regulatory frameworks to the digital age against the backdrop of increasingly blurred boundaries between communication services.
