Back
The Battle for Digital Autonomy: Delhi HC Shields Cricketer from AI Mimicry
In a significant judicial development for the protection of in the age of artificial intelligence, the has stepped in to safeguard the persona of Indian cricketer Abhishek Sharma. Faced with a surge of unauthorized AI-generated content and illegal merchandise sales, the court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction, marking a new milestone in how Indian law addresses the intersection of celebrity, privacy, and emerging technologies.
When Artificial Intelligence Targets Identity
The lawsuit filed by Abhishek Sharma, a rising star in international cricket, highlights the alarming trend of digital impersonation. The plaintiff alleged that unidentified persons, acting under the guise of various social media handles, were systematically exploiting his image, voice, and name.
The grievance was twofold: first, the dissemination of deepfake and morphed images depicting the cricketer in fabricated and obscene scenarios, which threatened his professional dignity; and second, the unauthorized commercialization of his athletic identity through the sale of T-shirts, jerseys, and posters on e-commerce giants like and .
Arguments and Legal Concerns
Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that Sharma’s hard-earned reputation is a valuable asset of significant commercial worth. By utilizing his face and likeness without permission, defendants were not merely violating his right to privacy but were also causing him irreparable financial and reputational harm. The plaintiff emphasized that social media entities and online marketplaces, by enabling these uploads and listings, had a duty to ensure that such content does not infringe upon the of individuals.
The defendants, including major platforms like , , and , were represented in court, with some acknowledging that part of the infringing content had already been addressed.
Setting the Bar: The Court’s Reasoning
Invoking a string of pivotal precedents—ranging from the iconic to the recent landmark protections granted to actors like Anil Kapoor—Justice Jyoti Singh affirmed that are not mere abstractions.
The court underscored that once an individual has cultivated a public persona, they have an inherent right to control its commercial exploitation. Justice Singh noted,
"In cases where
are established, an individual is entitled to protection by way of injunction against their unauthorised use or exploitation."
The court identified a case for the plaintiff, concluding that the heavily favored the athlete, who stood to suffer injury to his goodwill that could not be easily rectified later.
A Clear Warning to Digital Platforms
The court’s order serves as a stark reminder to digital intermediaries. Justice Singh directed social media platforms and marketplaces to take down identified within 36 hours. Furthermore, the court has restrained the defendants from any further creation or dissemination of AI-manipulated or morphed content featuring the cricketer’s attributes.
Key Observations
*
On the nature of injury:
"Plaintiff has made out a
case for grant of
against the Defendants."
*
On the scope of rights:
"Plaintiff has a right to protect his name, likeness and all other attributes of his personality and no third party has a right to use these attributes without his consent/authorization."
*
On the consequence of inaction:
"
lies in favour of the Plaintiff and he is likely to suffer
in case the interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
As this case moves toward its next date of hearing, it reaffirms the judiciary's proactive stance in creating a secure digital environment for public figures, signaling that technological advancements will not be a shield for those seeking to profit from another human being’s identity without consent.
