High Court
Finally, US court orders south Asian pirate Jadoo TV to shut down
MUMBAI; While Jadoo is a character we all recall very fondly from the Hrithik Roshan film Koi Mil gaya, the service called Jadoo has been one of the most hated in the world of pay TV. Especially by south Asian broadcasters and platforms in the US.
Jadoo TV was one of the most popular providers of pirated south Asian content to global audiences and it distributed its service through Jadoo set-top boxes and its mobile application way back in the previous decade. Many had tried to have it shuttered, but most had failed.
However, yesterday, the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP) announced that a long-running lawsuit against Jadoo TV. and its US-based CEO, Sajid Sohail, has resulted in a final judgment of $24,969,911 and a permanent injunction against Jadoo TV and Sohail individually. Jadoo TV also agreed to permanently cease all operations worldwide by 22 December 2024.
Earlier in the case, the court granted summary judgment on all claims against Jadoo TV and Sohail, finding them liable for direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. In that ruling, the court determined that. Sohail was personally liable as the guiding spirit behind the infringement of IBCAP member works.
The court’s s announcement yesterday follows years of protracted litigation dating back to November 2018, when IBCAP member Dish Network initially filed the case.
The final judgment entered against Jadoo TV and Sohail is unique in that it not only recognizes significant statutory damages for registered works ($14,550,000), but also a significant monetary award for unregistered works ($10,419,911). Notably, as part of a separate settlement agreement, Jadoo TV and Sohail agreed to transfer all Jadoo TV customer lists to Dish, transfer all Jadoo TV trademarks and domain names to Dish , and pay Dish $1,500,000 by 25 February 2025.
“This final judgment and settlement marks the culmination of a six-year legal battle against one of the most popular South Asian services offering pirated content, Jadoo TV, and its CEO, who was found personally liable for the damages caused by his and his company’s copyright infringement,” said IBCAP executive director Chris Kuelling, “Today’s announcement sends a strong message that the end of the road for a pirate IPTV service is a significant monetary payment and loss of your entire business.”
Dish had filed the case in in 2018 when Jadoo set-top boxes were widely available online and in retail stores throughout South Asian communities worldwide, including the US and Canada.
The case was coordinated by IBCAP and brought by IBCAP member Dish Network only after Dish and IBCAP sent numerous notices of copyright infringement.
The lawsuit included claims for direct, contributory and vicarious infringement against Jadoo TV and Sohail for airing certain IBCAP member content to which it did not have rights. Evidence for the case was obtained and provided by the IBCAP lab. Prosecution of the case and settlement negotiations were executed by Dish’s outside litigation counsel, Hagan Noll & Boyle, LLC.
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?
