High Court
219 private websites blocked for showing FIFA, Google does not figure in list
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has been informed by telecom player Airtel that it has already blocked 219 websites which were illegally streaming live the matches of 2014 FIFA World Cup.
The Court had earlier on 23 June issued an injunction restraining over 400 private websites from showing the matches, following a petition by Multi Screen Media (Sony) that holds the exclusive rights for beaming the matches in India.
Interestingly, the list given by Airtel does not list any Google website despite the fact that the Court had specifically cited two Google sites.
The vacation bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao gave a directive to the Department of Information Technology and Telecom to ensure implementation of the order of the court. He also said that his directive would be forwarded to the concerned Ministry.
The judge, who listed the matter to come up in the last week of July, gave the directive after hearing Saikrishna Rajagopal who was arguing on behalf of MSM.
The sports arm of MSM, Sony Six is the official broadcaster of the football extravaganza, while its digital platform LIVSports.in has the exclusive rights to live stream the event.
The network had moved the court after it found out that several unauthorised websites were streaming the World Cup matches illegally.
MSM had said that it has the official rights to telecast matches in six channels in the Indian sub-continent, including Sony Six and offers live streaming on Sony Liv and Liv Sports (for mobile).
The court order was revised on 1 July and the list of sites was modified after a list was submitted again by MSM. The High Court had also directed that the copy of the order must be sent to DoT and DIT, so that the Internet Service Providers can block the websites.
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.
