High Court
Govt. denies reports of imposition of penalty on Google
NEW DELHI: The Government today clarified that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has not imposed any penalty on Google Inc. for allegedly failing to provide information in a probe into its alleged unfair trade practices in India.
It said that media reports on the order of the Commission being stayed by the Delhi High Court are erroneous, since no such penalty (reported by the media as Rs one crore) had been imposed.
The Corporate Affairs Ministry said the Writ Petition No. 7084 of 2014 was filed by Google Inc. with respect to the case No. 06 of 2014 in which CCI has not imposed any penalty and therefore there is no question of stay of penalty.
The case related to issue of confidentiality and an order was passed by the Court after hearing the Counsels of the parties.
Meanwhile, the Court last week restrained the CCI from disclosing any information, considered as confidential by Google Inc, during its probe into a complaint lodged by an entrepreneur who also runs a website.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru in his order also issued notice to CCI and sought its response within four weeks on the plea of Google Inc.
“In the meantime, it is clarified that any information if submitted to CCI as well as to the Director General by the petitioner Google Inc, which the petitioner considers to be confidential, shall not be disclosed to any party and shall be kept strictly confidential,” the court said, and fixed the plea for hearing on 9 March 2015.
Google said that it had challenged the jurisdiction of the CCI in its appeal relating to a complaint filed by entrepreneur Vishal Gupta before the panel.
“The CCI lacks the territorial jurisdiction” and therefore was wrong to order a probe against Google Inc, it said.
Google also said that its action to terminate AdWords account, meant to promote its Remote Tech Support services, of Vishal Gupta/Audney Inc has “no impact on competition in India” and it has “legitimately” been suspended.
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?
