High Court
Kantar gets stay on cross-shareholding norms; TAM allowed to publish ratings
NEW DELHI: Kantar Market Research Services has managed to get the relief it wanted from the Delhi High Court on the cross-shareholding norms for television rating agencies.
On a petition by Kantar challenging the government’s cross-shareholding norms for TV ratings agencies, the HC has stayed the operation of four sections — 1.7a, 1.7d, 16.1 and 16.2 — that relate to cross-shareholdings and to publishing of TV viewership ratings in the Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India.
Kantar had filed the petition as the new policy would have resulted in TAM Media Research, a company it has jointly promoted with Nielsen India, having to shut operations.
The court has given TAM two weeks to register itself under all the other provisions of the policy that was recently approved by the Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs and comes into effect from 15 February.
In addition, the court has also stayed the operation of a clause that prevents existing TV rating agencies from publishing viewership ratings till they company with the provisions of the policy. TAM is the only company in India providing TV viewership ratings.
The Delhi High Court will hear further arguments in the case on 6 March.
Meanwhile, TAM has been ordered to place on its website the list of its shareholders and also the list of its clients.
The provisions of Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India that have been stayed are:
1.7 The company shall comply with the following cross holdings requirements.
(a) No single company/ legal entity, either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings, shall have substantial equity holding in rating agencies and broadcasters/advertisers/ advertising agencies.
(d) A promoter company/member of the board of directors of the rating agency cannot have stakes in any broadcaster/ advertiser/advertising agency either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings.
16. PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING RATING AGENCIES
16.1 These guidelines shall also be applicable to the existing rating agencies.
16.2 No rating agency shall generate and publish ratings till such time that they comply with the provisions of these guidelines.
Click here for the updated story
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?
