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?
High Court
Court defers Madison–CCI case to May 11
Interim relief continues as Centre seeks time to respond
NEW DELHI: The legal face-off between Madison Communications Pvt. Ltd. and the Competition Commission of India has been pushed to May 11, 2026, after the Union Government failed to file its response to the agency’s petition. The Delhi High Court granted the Centre a final two weeks to submit its affidavit, making it clear that any further delay could invite an adverse inference.
For now, the interim relief granted earlier will remain in place. This means the CCI cannot take any coercive steps against Madison or its senior executives until the matter is heard again, offering the agency temporary breathing room.
The dispute stems from a wide-ranging antitrust probe launched by the CCI into alleged cartelisation in the advertising industry. In March 2025, the regulator carried out raids on multiple agencies, including Madison, after receiving a leniency application from rival firm Dentsu. The watchdog suspects that agencies coordinated media rates and discounts through private groups, potentially breaching competition law.
Madison has challenged the investigation in court, questioning both its legality and procedure. The agency claims that its chairman Sam Balsara and executive director Vikram Sakhuja were questioned for nearly 20 hours without access to legal counsel and in the presence of armed personnel. It has also argued that the focus of the probe is misplaced, contending that the Indian Society of Advertisers’ Model Agency Agreement, rather than agency conduct, is what constrains competition by limiting margins.
Further, Madison alleges that the CCI did not provide a proper search memo or a detailed inventory of the digital data seized during the raids, raising concerns about due process.
With the interim protection extended, the spotlight now shifts to the Union Government. Its response over the next fortnight will determine whether the investigation regains momentum or faces deeper judicial scrutiny.
