The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned the legality of AI tools that let users interact with simulated celebrity personas without consent. The Court heard actor Shilpa Shetty Kundra’s personality rights suit over alleged misuse of her image and deepfake content in Shilpa Shetty v. getoutlive.in & Ors.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh examined Shetty’s broader prayers. She wants restraints against over 30 platforms. These include e-commerce websites and AI services. She alleges they host or enable content that exploits her name, image, voice, and likeness.
Court questions “chat” AI using celebrity personas
During the hearing, the Court questioned counsel for an AI chatbot website. Shetty has accused the platform of using her persona without permission.
“Without the permission of the personality, can you use an AI to chat with anybody in any manner? What is your right to do that?” the Court asked.
Counsel for the AI company argued that the platform runs on an algorithm. He submitted that it does not require celebrities’ consent. The Court then asked what right the platform has to enable such use.
Justice Deshmukh drew a distinction between user uploads and AI-generated outputs. She noted that an AI system can generate content while “knowing” it is not real. That, she said, raises separate concerns.
“This is an AI generated platform that knows that it is not real. How can AI create somebody’s personality in this manner without their permission and make it available in general public?” the Court remarked.
The Court directed the platform to file a detailed reply.
Court flags unverified YouTube commentary on pending proceedings
The Bench also raised concerns over YouTube commentary on pending proceedings. The videos relate to Shetty and her husband.
The Court said such content does not resemble a standard news report. It observed: “(Does) anybody get a right to speak about the court proceedings on YouTube? It’s not a news article. I can understand if it is a journalist or a news article website.”
The Court asked whether the defendants can verify the genuineness of statements in the video. It also asked how parties can prevent unverified content from maligning them.
Defendants cite takedowns; Court allows plea on non-compliance
Counsel for Google, Tenor, and the AI chatbot entity told the Court they remove infringing URLs when users flag them. Shetty’s counsel disputed the claim.
The Court gave Shetty liberty to file an application if infringing links remain accessible. She can raise non-compliance issues through that route.
Tenor affidavit and e-commerce takedowns
Tenor opposed a broad restraint order. It said it operates as an intermediary-style GIF platform. It argued it cannot proactively monitor user uploads. The Court asked Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the injunction.
E-commerce platforms, including Amazon and other marketplaces, informed the Court that they removed listings that used Shetty’s name and images without consent. They also said they will remove products again if Shetty provides specific URLs.
Justice Deshmukh reiterated that intermediary directions will work on a “takedown on notice” basis.
Background
The hearing followed an earlier order from December 2025. A vacation Bench had directed immediate takedown of morphed and AI-generated content. The content allegedly misused Shetty’s image, voice, and likeness across platforms.
