High Court
WhatsApp appoints grievance officer for India
KOLKATA: Amid talks over implementation of new IT rules, messaging platform WhatsApp has appointed Paresh B Lal as grievance officer in India.
WhatsApp has updated the new appointment on its website so users can contact Paresh B through a post box in Banjara Hills at Hyderabad in Telangana state. As per a PTI report, other large digital companies like Google have also started updating their websites to reflect the respective appointments of grievance officers in these organisations. Twitter also informed the Delhi high court that it has appointed the grievance redressal officer.
The government issued new intermediary guidelines for social media platforms on 25 February with a three-month deadline. It directed intermediaries to appoint a grievance officer based in India for a time-bound redressal of user complaints. As per the rules, a social media intermediary is also required to appoint a chief compliance officer, a nodal contact person for 24×7 coordination. They will also have to publish a monthly compliance report mentioning the details of complaints received and action taken.
After the rules came into effect on 26 May, the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) wrote to “Significant Social Media Intermediaries” (SSMIs) asking for details of compliance.
Under the new “the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Ethics Code) Rules, 2021,” SSMIs are defined as social media companies with more than 50 lakh registered users. Hence, Twitter, Facebook, Facebook-owned WhatsApp and Instagram fall under the SSMIs category.
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?
