Back
Khushi Kapoor gets injunction against AI deepfakes and impersonation
The on , granted an to actress Khushi Kapoor, restraining a wide range of unauthorized uses of her personality, including AI-generated deepfakes, obscene content, impersonation, and commercial exploitation of her images. Justice Jyoti Singh’s order marks a significant step in protecting celebrity personality rights in the digital age, particularly against emerging threats from artificial intelligence.
The Case: A Rising Star’s Fight for Identity
Khushi Kapoor, the younger daughter of late actress Sridevi and producer Boney Kapoor, made her acting debut in the Netflix Original Film
The Archies
in December 2023, followed by
Loveyapa
and
Nadaaniyan
. She has built a distinct professional identity independent of her family name, with a verified Instagram following of 2 million followers and brand collaborations with Myntra, Converse, and Sol de Janeiro. The suit sought to protect her
"
"
under
,
,
, and
against several categories of infringement.
Multiple Faces of Infringement
The plaintiff identified two broad categories of unauthorized use. The first involved the sale of posters bearing her name, image, and likeness on websites like iceposter.com, and the offering of her photographs for commercial licensing on indiacontent.in (operated by ). The second, more alarming category comprised AI-generated obscene images and videos, deepfakes, and AI chatbots on platforms like .ai and .com that allowed users to generate lewd content and interact with a digital impersonation of the actress. Additionally, a fake Facebook page styled as a fashion page had amassed 567,000 followers — nearly 28% of her own Instagram following — deceiving the public into believing it was official.
The suit named major intermediaries — , , , , , , , and Living Media — as defendants, along with for unknown infringers. Khatron Ke Khiladi? No, this was an all-fronts battle.
The Court’s Legal Reasoning
Justice Jyoti Singh, after perusing the screenshots and impugned content, held that a case existed, the was in Kapoor’s favour, and she would suffer if was not granted. Relying on precedents such as D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010), Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023), and Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store (2024), the court firmly established that unauthorized commercial use of a person’s name, image, or distinctive personality attributes constitutes infringement.
The court emphasized that Kapoor’s persona had acquired "" and that her name, voice, and likeness were instantly recognizable to the public. It noted the growing threat from AI technologies:
"Plaintiff’s name ‘Khushi Kapoor’ and her image, voice, likeness and other attributes of her personality have acquired and are associated with her instantly by members of public."
"unauthorised use of person's name, image or other distinctive attributes for commercial purposes constitutes an infringement of his rights, amounts to and leads to unearned commercial gain by others."
The Injunction and Takedown Orders
The court restrained all defendants, including the and the specific platform operators, from:
- Using or exploiting Kapoor’s name, image, likeness, or any personality attribute for commercial or personal gain, including through any technology such as AI, Generative AI, deepfakes, chatbots, face morphing, or voice cloning.
- Continuing to host, display, or offer for sale any such unauthorized content.
Specific directions were issued to the and the to notify all relevant ISPs and TSPs for blocking URLs listed in the Annexure (covering unauthorized commercial posters, obscene deepfake content, AI-generated images on , and impersonating chatbots on ) within 36 hours from receipt of the order. was similarly directed to takedown all URLs offering Kapoor’s photographs for commercial licensing.
The court granted Kapoor two weeks to comply with , and the next hearing is scheduled for .
Implications for the Digital Era
This judgment is a powerful message to both infringers and platforms: personality rights are real, enforceable, and extend to AI-generated and deepfake content. It clarifies that even if a platform does not create the offending material, hosting or enabling its discovery can lead to liability. For celebrities and public figures, it provides a strong tool to combat the misuse of their identity in the rapidly evolving landscape of generative AI.
As the court observed, the unauthorized use not only causes commercial detriment but also impacts an individual’s right to privacy and dignity. In an age where anyone can be digitally cloned, the has drawn a clear line: the person remains sovereign over their own persona.
