What began as a set of sharp questions from tech reviewers has turned into a much larger dispute over privacy claims, product identity, and the limits of online criticism. AI+, the smartphone brand backed by Madhav Sheth through NxtQuantum Shift Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., is now facing a legal fight that has pulled its “Made in India” positioning into the spotlight.
The controversy matters because AI+ built its early message around a very specific promise. Since entering the market in July 2025, the brand has presented itself as an Indian smartphone maker focused on privacy, local cloud infrastructure, and data handling designed for Indian users.
Privacy claims under scrutiny
At the center of the dispute is AI+’s claim that user data is stored on cloud infrastructure based in India and processed through domestically approved services. That message has become a key part of the company’s identity, especially as it positions privacy and data sovereignty as core selling points.
The problem is that several technology creators began questioning whether the products and software experience matched that message. Their concerns quickly spread beyond niche reviews and into broader public debate, where the issue was no longer just about device features.
One of the most talked-about claims came from TechWiser. The channel said it analyzed an AI+ device using Android Debug Bridge, or ADB, and found hidden applications that were not visible in the standard user interface.
According to TechWiser, some of those apps appeared to be connected to a Shanghai-based company. That finding raised immediate questions about how a privacy-first brand could explain software components that users could not easily see on the device.
A separate concern involved AI+’s privacy dashboard, which is meant to help users track app permissions. TechWiser said some Google services appeared to take permissions without those actions being fully reflected in the dashboard’s reporting.
If accurate, that would weaken the value of a feature that is supposed to improve transparency. For users, the issue is not only whether permissions exist, but whether the phone presents a complete picture of what the system is doing in the background.
Branding, hardware identity, and the “Made in India” question
The debate did not stop at software behavior. It also moved toward the broader question of what “Made in India” means for AI+ as a smartphone brand.
Mrwhosetheboss pointed to similarities in design and specifications between AI+ devices and phones already sold by Chinese manufacturers. That comparison prompted doubts about how independently the hardware and software had been developed in India.
The issue became especially sensitive because AI+ had leaned heavily on domestic manufacturing and local technology messaging from the start. For supporters, the brand represents an effort to build an Indian smartphone story around privacy and control.
AI+ rejected the allegations. The company said its products, operating system, and supporting infrastructure are assembled and managed in India.
Madhav Sheth’s involvement has made the matter even more visible. Known for his previous leadership role at realme India, he brings a profile that ensures every claim and response from AI+ attracts close public attention.
The dispute reaches court
AI+ later argued in court filings that the reviewers’ allegations were built on incomplete or inaccurate technical analysis. The company also repeated that user data remains stored in India and that its privacy commitments have not changed.
The company said the videos caused reputational harm. It also stated that the claims being circulated had not been independently verified by recognized technical experts.
The fight then moved to the Delhi High Court. In April 2026, the court granted an interim order restricting TechWiser and TechBar from publishing material deemed derogatory to AI+ and its founder while the case remained under review.
That order also included a John Doe clause. Such a clause can extend to unidentified parties who may be involved in similar uploads or related content.
At the interim stage, the court noted that the circulating allegations had not yet been supported by proper technical review from an independent body. The court also observed that statements of that kind could cause commercial damage if they later proved to be inaccurate.
The order triggered immediate debate in the technology and legal communities. Some saw it as a reasonable way to protect a company’s reputation, while others worried about the effect on independent reviews and online criticism.
What remains unresolved
The case entered another phase in May 2026 when TechWiser challenged the injunction. In later hearings, questions emerged about how the original ex parte order had been obtained.
Delhi High Court then directed AI+ founder Madhav Sheth to appear before the court. That step came as the court examined the allegations surrounding the process behind the injunction.
For now, there has been no final finding on the central claims. The questions around hidden software, privacy risk, and the accuracy of the “Made in India” branding remain unresolved.
The dispute also reached a wider audience after Arun Maini, better known as Mrwhosetheboss, discussed it. His involvement pushed the issue beyond India’s tech community and into a broader conversation about consumer rights, corporate accountability, tech journalism, and freedom of speech online.
