Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Deepfake Misuse of Entrepreneur Ankur Warikoo’s Persona - 2026-05-27

Digital Identity Under Siege: Delhi High Court Curbs Deepfake Menace

In a significant legal intervention addressing the growing threat of AI-generated misinformation, the Delhi High Court has stepped in to protect the "personality and publicity rights" of well-known entrepreneur and personal finance influencer, Ankur Warikoo. Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, issued an interim injunction restraining unidentified parties—referred to as "John Does"—from using Warikoo’s likeness, voice, and name in deceptive deepfake videos.

The Anatomy of the Deception

Plaintiffs Ankur Warikoo and his company, M/s Zaan WebVeda Private Limited, approached the court after a series of sophisticated deepfake videos began circulating on social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp. These videos, which often featured Warikoo’s visage and synthesized voice, were designed to lure unsuspecting investors into high-risk, "get-rich-quick" schemes and fraudulent WhatsApp stock-trading groups.

The plaintiffs highlighted a systematic failure in online safety protocols, noting that despite reporting numerous infringing URLs to the Grievance Officer and the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), many deepfake links remained active, continuing to defraud the public.

Balancing Rights in a Digital Age

The legal questions before the court centered on the protection of individual persona in an era where AI can manufacture reality. The plaintiffs argued that Warikoo, a celebrated digital influencer with over 15.1 million followers, has spent years building a brand based on financial literacy. Unauthorized use of his persona for fraudulent schemes not only infringes on his trademark "Warikoo" but also causes irreparable reputational and financial harm.

The court recognized the urgency of the matter, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi to exempt the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation, given the necessity for immediate interim relief.

The Court’s Mandate

Justice Amit Bansal’s order delivers a robust blow to the perpetrators of deepfake fraud:

• Restraining Orders: The defendants are strictly barred from misusing the name, image, voice, or any aspect of Warikoo’s persona for commercial or personal gain via AI or deepfake technology.
• Takedown Directives: Social media intermediaries have been ordered to disable access to identified infringing URLs within 36 hours.
• Future-Proofing: The Court permitted the plaintiffs to approach the defendants to block any future deepfakes not yet identified, ensuring a continuous safety net during the litigation.
• Compliance: The intermediaries are now mandated to disclose on affidavit all technical details, including IP addresses and account information associated with the infringing content.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the judiciary’s stance on the sanctity of digital identity:

> "The defendant no.1/ John Doe(s)... are restrained from directly or indirectly misusing, misappropriating or exploiting the name, likeness, image, photos, videos, voice or any other aspects of the plaintiff no.1's persona... for any illegal commercial and/ or personal gain."

> "The deep fakes are designed to trap innocent investors and unsuspecting followers into joining suspicious WhatsApp groups, wherein the participants are asked to make risky trades and investments."

> "In view of the above, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs... Irreparable loss, harm and injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if the defendant no.1 are allowed to continue publishing/ circulating the aforesaid deep fake contents."

Implications for the Future

By enforcing strict timelines for content removal and affirming the right to personality, this order serves as a stern warning against the indiscriminate use of synthetic media. As courts continue to grapple with the intersection of technology and liability, the Warikoo case establishes a practical framework for how individuals—and the public at-large—can seek recourse against the dark side of generative AI.

The matter is set for further proceedings on August 4, 2025, before the Joint Registrar, as the court keeps a close watch on the implementation of these directives.