Bollywood Star's Persona Under Siege: Delhi HC Strikes Back Against AI Deepfakes

In a swift move amid the digital deluge of misuse, the Delhi High Court on April 29, 2026, granted Bollywood actor Arjun Kapoor an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting his personality and publicity rights. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela restrained multiple defendants—from event booking agencies to AI content creators and e-commerce platforms—from exploiting Kapoor's name, image, voice, and likeness without permission. This ruling underscores the court's growing vigilance against AI-driven infringements, following similar protections for stars like Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Salman Khan, and Sonakshi Sinha.

Rise of a Star, Fall into Digital Shadows

Arjun Kapoor, with a 14-year career boasting hits like Ishaqzaade (2012), 2 States (2014), and Singham Again (2024)—the latter earning over ₹350 crores—has built a stellar reputation. Awards from Zee Cine to Filmfare, endorsements for brands like Myntra and Hero Cycles, philanthropy via Oscar Foundation and COVID funds, and 15.7 million Instagram followers cement his public image as dynamic and trustworthy.

Yet, Kapoor alleged a rampant assault on his persona: defendants impersonated him for event bookings (Defendants 1-2), sold merchandise like T-shirts with his image (Defendants 3-8), generated AI deepfakes pairing him inappropriately with celebrities or in sexually explicit videos (Defendants 9-16), and hosted pornographic content. Screenshots in the plaint detailed these violations across platforms, with John Does covering unidentified infringers. Prior cease-and-desist notices went unheeded, fueling unlawful profits via YouTube ad revenue from high-viewership deepfakes.

The suit, filed as CS(COMM) 454/2026 under the Commercial Courts Act, sought urgent injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, alongside procedural reliefs like document discovery and mediation exemption.

Plaintiff's Plea: Irreparable Dent to Stardom

Kapoor's counsel, led by Pravin Anand, argued his name, voice, image, style, and signature are exclusive source identifiers, honed through hard work. Infringements—especially AI-generated "abhorrent" content—caused irreparable harm, unjustly enriching defendants. They highlighted no licenses existed, and platforms profited from views, creating a vicious cycle.

Intermediaries like Google LLC (D-12) and Meta (D-16), appearing via counsel, countered that some content bordered on permissible parody or lampooning, not all warranted takedowns.

Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Prima Facie Case Sealed

Justice Gedela meticulously reviewed the plaint's tabulated infringements and screenshots, finding an "overwhelming number" established prima facie violation. He rejected intermediaries' parody defense for most instances, emphasizing willful misappropriation for "unlawful financial gains."

Key to the ruling: Kapoor's "exclusive place" via box-office successes, endorsements, and visibility rendered his attributes protectable. No prior permissions existed, tilting balance of convenience toward injunction to avert irreparable injury.

A cited precedent, Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 815, justified skipping pre-institution mediation due to urgency.

"Clearly, those defendants who have employed AI tools to create videos containing sexually explicit and abhorrent content are demonstrably violating the personality/publicity rights of the plaintiff. In fact, such videos are vulgar and clearly would dent the image and the personality rights of the plaintiff, not only beyond measure, but presumably, irreparably too. Such content cannot be permitted to continue to be available on any platforms in any manner whatsoever and are needed to be taken down forthwith."

This echoes a trend, as other sources note similar reliefs for Vivek Oberoi, Allu Arjun, and Gautam Gambhir, signaling judicial consensus on AI threats.

sweeping Orders: Platforms on Notice, Content Pulled

The court issued broad restraints against Defendants 1-11, 13-15, and John Does from using Kapoor's persona via any tech, including AI, deepfakes, or morphing, for gain. No creating/sharing merchandise or content suggesting affiliation.

Platforms faced directives: Defendants 3-16 must takedown specified links (Documents 1-3); Google to disclose YouTube channel BSI (Document-2); Meta for Facebook/Instagram (Document-3). Future flags trigger 48-hour blocks, with impleadment liberty for plaintiff.

The suit advances, listed October 8, 2026, post-pleadings.

Ripple Effects: A Shield for Celebrities in AI Era?

This injunction not only halts immediate harms but empowers proactive monitoring, with remedies for over-blocked sites. It reinforces personality rights as enforceable against tech-enabled exploitation, potentially setting benchmarks for monetization curbs and platform accountability. As deepfakes proliferate, Kapoor's win fortifies the digital ramparts for public figures everywhere.