High Court
Commercial TV subscriber tariffs: Broadcasters, Star take battle to courts
MUMBAI: It’s the battle of the bill – the commercial cable TV bill, that is. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on 16 July 2014 issued an amendment to its earlier 2004 broadcasting and cable TV tariff order. The amendment brought in new customer categories such as commercial establishments and commercial subscribers. And it also stated that as far as cable TV rates are concerned, there shouldn’t be any differentiation on an ordinary and commercial subscriber and charges for both should be on a per TV set basis.
That amendment has not gone down well with the Indian broadcast community as they have been lobbying for differential rates for commercial subscribers for a long time and the global practice is that commercial establishment and subscribers pay more than common subscribers.
Its representative body, the Indian Broadcasting Federation (IBF) decided to challenge the tariff order for non-digital addressable areas (DAS) in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). And industry leader Star India decided to file a writ petition against the TRAI challenging the order for both non DAS and DAS and other addressable systems in the Delhi High Court.
Coincidentally both the cases came up for hearing on the same day. While the HC declined to give a stay order on the 16 July 2014 tariff order amendment, it has served notices to both the TRAI and the Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India (FHRAI).
The matter has been posted for a full-fledged hearing on 26 September. Till then, the order is maintainable. Meanwhile, the TDSAT has said that it will wait till the HC decides on the case to take any further action.
What Star India has challenged in the HC is that the 16 July 2014 amendment order denies broadcasters the right to directly deal with the hotels. Star India has also appealed that it will have to unnecessarily depend on distribution platform operators DPOs to strike content deals as for commercial establishments, which might be treated as ordinary subscribers unless they specifically charge customers for cable TV subscribers. The broadcaster can only give a differentiated rate to those hotels that categorically mention TV as one of the services, thereby being deeming it fit to be called a commercial subscriber.
The TRAI and FHRAI have been asked to respond to notices by the next hearing.
Click here for the High Court order
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?
