High Court
Delhi High Court blocks rogue sites from streaming India–England series
MUMBAI: In a significant win for content rights holders, the Delhi high court has restrained multiple rogue websites from illegally streaming the India tour of England 2025 (ITE 2025), following a copyright infringement plea filed by JioStar India Pvt Ltd (formerly Star India Pvt Ltd).
Justice Saurabh Banerjee granted a ‘dynamic+’ injunction, enabling real-time blocking of infringing websites during live match broadcasts.
The five-Test series between India and England is scheduled from June to August 2025 and JioStar holds exclusive digital media rights for ITE 2025 under a licensing agreement with Culver Max Entertainment Pvt Ltd (Sony).
JioStar alleged various third party websites of streaming IPL 2025 illegally and were likely to do so again during the England tour.
As per the court’s orders:
. Immediate suspension of the four listed rogue domains by their respective registrars, including Namecheap Inc., Sav.com LLC, and Tucows Domains Inc.
. Direction to internet service providers — including Airtel, Jio, and Vodafone Idea — to block access to these websites within 72 hours.
. Permission for JioStar to notify additional infringing websites on affidavit during the series, without the need for separate court orders.
. Coordination mandated between the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to ensure ISP compliance.
. Inclusion of unnamed infringers as John Doe defendants to allow future enforcement.
This comes after the court addressed the growing challenge posed by “hydra-headed” piracy websites, which routinely mask ownership and replicate via mirror domains.
“The rights of an intellectual property holder cannot be rendered otiose in this world of rapidly developing technology,” the order observed.
The judgement referenced recent rulings such as Universal City Studios v. Dotmovies.baby and Applause Entertainment v. Meta Platforms, reflecting evolving judicial strategies to curb digital piracy. The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on 13 October 2025. In the interim, JioStar has been directed to file regular affidavits identifying any new infringing domains during the India–England series.
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?
