High Court
Delhi High Court orders removal of deepfake Gambhir videos
Platforms including Meta, Google and Amazon directed to take down content and disclose uploaders.
MUMBAI: Gautam Gambhir just scored a legal boundary because when deepfakes put words in the coach’s mouth, even the court steps in to call “no ball”. The Delhi High Court has directed major technology platforms to remove objectionable deepfake videos and content misusing the identity of former India cricketer and current head coach Gautam Gambhir. A single-judge bench led by Justice Jyoti Singh said it would issue directions to Meta, Google and Amazon to take down flagged links and posts, while also asking them to disclose details of the entities responsible for uploading the material.
Gambhir approached the court seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights, alleging that his name, voice, image and likeness were being misused through AI tools and deepfake technology. His plea also sought damages of Rs 2.5 crore and a permanent injunction against such use.
Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, appearing for Gambhir, told the court that the content had “material consequence”, citing fabricated videos that falsely showed Gambhir resigning as head coach after a poor performance or assaulting a fellow player. “Imagine the head coach of the Indian team and words are being put in his mouth through deepfake to say he is resigning from the team. It has created a lot of issues,” he said.
The court granted protection to Gambhir’s personality rights and ordered the removal of objectionable posts circulating without his consent. It further directed platforms to remove offending URLs and share basic subscriber information of those behind the uploads.
The case stems from a plea filed in the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court, which alleged a “coordinated campaign of digital impersonation”. Several clips cited in the lawsuit had gained significant traction online, with a fake resignation video reportedly crossing 2.9 million views and another misleading clip drawing over 1.7 million views. Gambhir’s legal team also flagged unauthorised merchandise being sold on e-commerce platforms using his name and likeness without consent.
The suit names 16 defendants, including individual social media accounts, e-commerce platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart, and technology companies including Meta, X Corp. and Google (which owns Youtube). Gambhir alleged that anonymous accounts were exploiting his identity to spread misinformation and generate revenue.
In an age where deepfakes can make anyone say anything, the Delhi High Court has sent a clear message: your face, your voice and your name are not fair game for clicks and coins. Gambhir’s swift legal action may just become the playbook for public figures fighting back against digital impersonation.
High Court
Bombay High Court questions AI celebrity deepfakes in Shilpa Shetty case
Justice questions legality of unconsented AI personas, platforms directed to respond.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court just put AI on the witness stand because when a chatbot starts chatting as Shilpa Shetty without asking, even the bench wants to know who gave permission. The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed serious concerns over the legality of artificial intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent, during a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, hearing the matter, questioned platforms that allow users to interact with AI-generated versions of actors without authorisation. The court noted that one accused AI chatbot website continued using Shetty’s personality without permission, prompting the judge to ask about the legal basis for such operations.
When the lawyer for the AI company argued that the system relied on algorithms and did not require celebrity consent, Justice Deshmukh challenged the platform’s right to recreate and make public a person’s identity in this manner. She observed that while users uploading photographs raised one set of issues, AI systems generating content based on recognised personalities posed distinct legal and ethical questions especially when the platform itself acknowledged the content was not real.
The court directed the platform to file a detailed response explaining its position.
The case involves Shetty seeking restrictions on more than 30 platforms including e-commerce websites and AI services accused of hosting or enabling misuse of her image and circulation of deepfake content.
The Bench also raised concerns about Youtube commentary videos discussing the ongoing proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, questioning whether unverified discussions could malign parties without journalistic checks.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI entity informed the court that flagged infringing URLs had been removed. Shetty’s team disputed this, leading the court to allow her to file an application alleging non-compliance if links remained active.
Tenor objected to the broad injunction sought, arguing it functions as an intermediary GIF platform without capacity for proactive monitoring. The court directed Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the order.
E-commerce platforms including Amazon stated they had removed unauthorised listings using Shetty’s name and image, and would continue to act on specific notifications.
The court reiterated that directions for intermediaries would operate on a “take-down on notice” basis, requiring removal of infringing content once flagged.
As deepfakes blur the line between real and rendered, the Bombay High Court isn’t just hearing a case, it’s asking the bigger question: in the age of AI avatars, who really owns your face?
