Appin and co-founder Rajat Khare have filed lawsuits and sent legal demands to news organisations in multiple countries, including France, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and India, seeking removal of references in articles to the company and Khare.[21][22][6] Khare's lawyers at Clare Locke have said the underlying allegations are "categorically false" and "have been rejected by courts and regulatory bodies and debunked by experts," and that Khare's career has been dedicated to "cyber-defense and the prevention of illicit hacking."
In November 2022, a lower court in Geneva ordered SRF Investigativ to provisionally remove Khare's name and photo from its investigative report on the Project Merciless espionage operation. When contacted by RSF, Khare's Swiss lawyer, Nicolas Capt, stated that Khare has taken "legitimate legal action — civil and criminal — to protect his honour, which has been damaged by false accusations."[6]
In June 2023, The New Yorker published an investigation on India's hacking-for-hire industry, detailing the operations of firms founded by Appin alumni, such as BellTroX Infotech Services and CyberRoot Risk Advisory. The Association of Appin Training Centers (AOATC) first sued the U.S. magazine in India, and later, Khare filed a lawsuit against it in Switzerland. A spokesperson for The New Yorker told RSF that the magazine "fully stands behind the piece, which is an accurate and fair account on a matter of legitimate public interest" and would "continue to defend the right to publish important reporting without fear or favor."[4][6]
On 16 November 2023, Reuters published an article about the company and its co-founder Khare titled, "How an Indian Startup Hacked the World." The investigation found that Appin "grew from an educational startup to a hack-for-hire powerhouse that stole secrets from executives, politicians, military officials and wealthy elites around the globe." The report was based on Appin's activities for nearly two decades, including company records, law enforcement files, and input from former employees, clients, and security professionals. The raw material spanning 2005 to 2023 was authenticated by Reuters and further verified by U.S. cybersecurity firm SentinelOne.[1][6]
The AOATC sued Reuters, claiming the news agency had engaged in a "defamatory campaign"[23][24] and accusing the agency of "defamation, mental harassment, stalking, sexual misconduct and trauma" based on what the complaint characterised as unsolicited messages Reuters reporters sent to Appin Training Centers' employees and students. It obtained an injunction from a Delhi court and, on 4 December 2023, Reuters temporarily removed its article. Reuters said that it stood by its reporting.[25][24][26]
An archived version of the Reuters article hosted on the Wayback Machine was likewise removed following demands from lawyers representing Khare.[27] Lawyers for the AOATC further sent demands to Meta Platforms, LinkedIn and Naukri.com to block accounts associated with the authors of the Reuters story.[22]
On the same day as the Delhi court injunction, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs revoked the Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card of Raphael Satter, one of the Reuters journalists who reported the story, stating he had been "practising journalism without proper permission" and "maliciously creating adverse and biased opinion against Indian institutions in the international arena".[28] Satter said he had received threats from individuals associated with Appin during his reporting, one of whom alluded to potential "diplomatic action" unless he abandoned his investigation.[28]
In February 2024, Wired reported that lawyers for Appin and a related entity called the "Association for Appin Training Centers" have filed lawsuits and made legal threats against more than a dozen news organisations. Appin sent emails demanding that news site Techdirt and the organisation MuckRock, which hosted some of the information Reuters relied on, take down their content. The two sites denied that the injunction was binding on them.[29][30][31] Other sites, such as the Lawfare blog, removed material based on the Reuters article.[24][29]
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) responded on behalf of Techdirt and MuckRock, arguing that the Indian court's order is unenforceable in U.S. courts because it conflicts with the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as reinforced by the SPEECH Act. The EFF also argued that recipients of such orders should carefully evaluate their enforceability.[32][30][31]
In February 2024, two episodes of the American podcast Behind the Bastards about Khare were pulled from podcast platforms after the show received a legal threat; the episodes had avoided using Khare's name in their titles.[6]
The Reuters article was restored in October 2024, after the Delhi court rescinded its injunction on 3 October 2024, noting "the plaintiff has not been able to show any prima facie case to make interference in the process of journalism".[33] The article is back online at its original location.[1]
On 21 November 2024, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reported that works from at least 15 different media outlets had been modified or withdrawn as a result of a strategic lawsuit against public participation or a legal notice from Khare or Appin Training Centers. RSF also found that numerous posts praising Khare appeared on platforms such as Medium, authored by accounts with generic names and AI-generated profile photos that commented on one another's content, in what RSF described as an attempt to "flood the Internet" and "drown out the troublesome investigations". Additionally, an Intelligence Online article[11] was the subject of what RSF described as an "abusive DMCA takedown request".[6][34]
In March 2025, Satter petitioned the Delhi High Court to challenge the OCI revocation.[28] During a November 2025 hearing, the court criticised the Ministry of Home Affairs for its documentation, with the judge stating that MHA officers had "completely distorted" the paperwork supporting the cancellation.[35]