Bombay HC protects Shruti Haasan from AI deepfakes and unauthorised digital use

MUMBAI: Shruti Haasan is taking a stand against digital impersonation, and the Bombay High Court has given her legal backing.

The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to actor and singer Shruti Haasan against the unauthorised use of her image, likeness and persona in AI-generated and other digital content, Bar and Bench reported.

Justice Madhav Jamdar passed the interim order after Haasan sought protection for her personality and publicity rights. Her plea raised concerns over AI-generated deepfakes, manipulated videos, unauthorised commercial endorsements and merchandise using her identity without her consent.

The court noted that the continued circulation of such material could cause lasting damage to Haasan’s goodwill, reputation and commercial interests. With digital content capable of being copied and circulated rapidly once it appears online, the court observed that financial compensation alone may not be sufficient to remedy the harm.

Justice Jamdar said the material placed before the court indicated violations of Haasan’s personality, publicity and moral rights.

The order also referred to constitutional protections under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, which cover freedom of speech and expression as well as privacy and the right to live with dignity.

The court subsequently directed the removal of content specifically identified by Haasan in her plea.

The order comes as the rapid spread of generative artificial intelligence makes it increasingly easy to create realistic images, videos and other material featuring public figures without their involvement or consent.

For celebrities, the concern is not limited to embarrassing or misleading content. Unauthorised use of a person’s identity can also create the impression that they endorse a product, service or message when they do not, potentially affecting both reputation and commercial opportunities.

Haasan filed the suit last month against several entities allegedly involved in creating, hosting or distributing material that misused her persona.

During earlier proceedings, the court had given defendants who had not responded an opportunity to appear or file their replies. Some respondents subsequently failed to appear or submit a defence despite being given several weeks.

The court then granted an ad-interim injunction against those parties.

Other defendants who appeared before the court assured it that infringing material hosted on their platforms would be removed once Haasan’s legal representatives provided clear and legible URLs identifying the content.

The case adds to the growing legal debate in India over how personality and publicity rights should apply in an age of AI-generated content. For public figures, the challenge is increasingly moving beyond protecting a photograph or name to controlling how their entire digital identity can be reproduced and commercially exploited.

For Haasan, the interim order provides immediate protection while the wider dispute continues, signalling that going viral does not necessarily mean going beyond the reach of the law.