Back
Bombay HC Shields Bollywood Star Kartik Aaryan from AI Deepfakes and Digital Impostors
In a swift move to combat the dark side of digital replication, the has granted Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan sweeping interim relief, protecting his . Single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh ordered social media giants and e-commerce platforms—including Meta, Google, and Amazon—to takedown unauthorized AI-generated content, fake merchandise, and impersonation websites within 36 hours of notification. The ruling, dated , in Kartik Aaryan vs. Vinsm Globe Private Limited & Ors. (Interim Application (L) No. 9466 of 2026), underscores the growing vulnerability of celebrities to AI misuse.
From Silver Screen to Digital Nightmare: The Rise of Unauthorized Exploits
Kartik Aaryan, a household name in Hindi cinema with hits like Pyaar Ka Punchnama , Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety , and brand endorsements from global giants, boasts millions of social media followers and a registered trademark for his name—"Kartik Aaryan." His public persona, built through films, awards, and philanthropy, has become a magnet for exploiters.
The suit targets a web of defendants: fake websites (Defendants 1-2) posing as booking agents for Aaryan's performances, merchandise sellers (3-4) hawking unauthorized T-shirts and posters with his image, rogue Instagram pages (5), AI chatbots (6-7) mimicking his likeness for "personal conversations," and platforms hosting deepfake videos—including pornographic ones submitted in a sealed envelope. Intermediaries like YouTube (Defendant 8), Instagram/Facebook (9), and others bear the brunt of takedown orders.
The timeline escalated rapidly: Filed as Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 9465 of 2026, the interim application sought urgent restraints amid rampant online tarnishing, with the court acting on April 15 and listing next hearing for .
Plaintiff's Plea: A Star's Fight for Digital Dignity
Represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf (with Anand & Naik), Aaryan argued his over name, image, likeness, voice, and persona attributes. Key grievances: - Commercial hijacking : Merchandise implying endorsement, fake booking sites duping fans. - Privacy invasion : AI chatbots enabling "interactions" as Aaryan; deepfake porn and morphed images linking him to sex offenders. - Reputation hit : Videos on YouTube, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and Facebook eroding brand value.
Citing his trademark registration and celebrity status, Saraf urged relief against unidentified infringers, plus intermediary takedowns under caveats—platforms could object but must act swiftly.
Intermediaries Push Back: Blanket Bans or Targeted Strikes?
Defendants' counsels, including for some, for Meta, for Google (YouTube), and for Amazon, contested broad injunctions. YouTube argued against channel-wide deletions without impleading uploaders, insisting on specific URLs. The court rejected this, noting physical impleadment of anonymous actors is impossible and aggrieved parties can seek redress later.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Personality Rights in the AI Era
Justice Deshmukh affirmed Aaryan's status as a "globally recognized actor" with
, extending to publicity and privacy. No precedents were explicitly cited, but the order invokes judicial consistency: courts have
"consistently upheld the
... extending to publicity/personality rights."
Key distinctions: - Publicity vs. Privacy : Unauthorized commercial use (merch, bookings) dilutes brand value; obscene AI content (deepfakes) tarnishes reputation. - : Protected under , but urgent deletion warranted for "prejudicial" material.
The bench perused screenshots, exhibits (B-E listing infringing links), and sealed pornographic evidence, finding unauthorized exploitation implying false endorsement and public deception.
"Theprotects an individual against unauthorized exploitation of their personality attributes including their name, image, likeness, voice and other distinctive attitudes."
, no public domain defense held; all content screamed commercial unjust enrichment.
Standout Quotes from the Bench
Justice Deshmukh's order packs potent observations: -
On urgency
:
"
, the material which has been annexed to the plaint would demonstrate the need for an immediate restraint order."
-
AI peril
:
"The obscene and disparaging content uploaded on public viewing platform needs urgent deletion/delisting."
-
Chatbot critique
:
"Through such [AI chat-bot], the voice, image and likeness of the Plaintiff’s persona is sought to be commercially exploited without consent."
-
Brand impact
:
"The unauthorised use of the Plaintiff’s personality right for commercial purpose has the effect of diminishing the Plaintiff’s brand value."
-
Celebrity risk
:
"Being a well known public figure invites the risk of unauthorised exploitation of the person’s personality attributes for unjust enrichment."
Victory Lap: Orders Issued, Implications Unfold
Aaryan secured under prayers (a)-(e), modified to exclude Defendant 6 from one clause: - Restrain Defendants 1-5,7 from misuse/sale. - Intermediaries (identified/unidentified) to delete flagged URLs exploiting persona within 36 hours , absent objections. - Amendments allowed; service via speed post/email; next date June 10.
Practical ripple effects : Bolsters celebrity defenses against AI deepfakes, sets 36-hour takedown precedent, balances intermediary rights. As LiveLaw notes ( ), this curbs "obscene" AI content disparaging reputations— a template for stars navigating web 3.0 threats.
While interim, it signals courts' zero-tolerance for digital personas peddled without consent, potentially reshaping IP enforcement in India's booming creator economy.
