High Court
Court defers Madison–CCI case to May 11
Interim relief continues as Centre seeks time to respond
NEW DELHI: The legal face-off between Madison Communications Pvt. Ltd. and the Competition Commission of India has been pushed to May 11, 2026, after the Union Government failed to file its response to the agency’s petition. The Delhi High Court granted the Centre a final two weeks to submit its affidavit, making it clear that any further delay could invite an adverse inference.
For now, the interim relief granted earlier will remain in place. This means the CCI cannot take any coercive steps against Madison or its senior executives until the matter is heard again, offering the agency temporary breathing room.
The dispute stems from a wide-ranging antitrust probe launched by the CCI into alleged cartelisation in the advertising industry. In March 2025, the regulator carried out raids on multiple agencies, including Madison, after receiving a leniency application from rival firm Dentsu. The watchdog suspects that agencies coordinated media rates and discounts through private groups, potentially breaching competition law.
Madison has challenged the investigation in court, questioning both its legality and procedure. The agency claims that its chairman Sam Balsara and executive director Vikram Sakhuja were questioned for nearly 20 hours without access to legal counsel and in the presence of armed personnel. It has also argued that the focus of the probe is misplaced, contending that the Indian Society of Advertisers’ Model Agency Agreement, rather than agency conduct, is what constrains competition by limiting margins.
Further, Madison alleges that the CCI did not provide a proper search memo or a detailed inventory of the digital data seized during the raids, raising concerns about due process.
With the interim protection extended, the spotlight now shifts to the Union Government. Its response over the next fortnight will determine whether the investigation regains momentum or faces deeper judicial scrutiny.
High Court
Bombay HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
