Back
Samantha Ruth Prabhu Secures Injunction Over AI and Unauthorized Persona Use
The has delivered a landmark protecting actor Samantha Ruth Prabhu from the unauthorised exploitation of her persona through artificial intelligence, , , and commercial misuse. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, presiding on , found a “ ” in favour of Prabhu and directed the removal of infringing content across digital platforms. The order restrains a wide range of entities—including AI developers, e-commerce sites, and social media platforms—from using Prabhu’s name, image, voice, or likeness without her consent. The court’s reasoning wove together under , under , and the obligations of intermediaries under .
The Scale of Unauthorised Use
Prabhu’s legal team uncovered what the court described as “widespread, organised and systematic misuse” of her persona beginning in the third week of July 2026. The material included AI-generated deepfake videos, manipulated photographs, a chatbot persona operating under the obscene username “@pinkpussy69” that engaged users in vulgar conversations, and unauthorised merchandise sold on retail websites. A “soundboard” website also used Prabhu’s name and image to sell voice clips. The court noted that the content had been created and disseminated without any consent, and that its continued circulation was causing “ to her goodwill, reputation, dignity and commercial interests.”
The judgment specifically highlighted the difficulty of containing such harm once pornographic or obscene material is uploaded online. “Once such material, particularly pornographic or obscene content, is disseminated online, it can undergo unlimited replication and circulation,” the court observed, adding that monetary damages alone would be inadequate compensation.
Constitutional and Statutory Foundations
Justice Jamdar anchored the relief in multiple legal sources. First, he held that Prabhu’s personality and are protected by Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty, including privacy and dignity). Second, he recognised her separate moral rights as a performer under Section 38B of the Copyright Act, which prevents distortion or mutilation of a performer’s work. The court concluded that all these valuable rights were “violated and adversely affected by the of the defendants.”
The order also engaged with the Information Technology Rules, noting that Rule 3(1)(b) imposes on intermediaries to remove or disable access to unlawful content. The court referred to an earlier order in a similar case involving actor Akshay Kumar, as well as orders in cases concerning Shruti Haasan and Preity G. Zinta, which had established the framework for protecting celebrity in the digital space.
Scope of Interim Relief and Platform Cooperation
The covers not only the specific infringing content and listings identified by Prabhu’s team, but also any future material of a similar nature. When Prabhu or her authorised representative notifies , , or other platforms in writing about further violations, the platforms are required to take down or disable access, subject to their right to communicate objections with reasons. Both and informed the court that they had no objection to implementing the order. However, they cautioned that some future links might contain genuine photographs or material. The court recorded that such objections could be communicated to Prabhu’s advocate, and if the issue remained unresolved, she could approach the court for further directions. All defendants also have liberty to approach the court in such situations.
Notably, one of the AI chatbot operators—the platform behind the character—had already disabled access to the offending character after being served with the plaint and interim application. This suggests that the legal notice itself had an immediate deterrent effect.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Aspects
Prabhu invoked for jurisdiction, and her claim regarding performers’ moral rights fell under Section 38B. She was granted leave under on , allowing the to hear the matter even though some defendants and causes of action lie outside its ordinary territorial limits. Prabhu argued that her business and goodwill are rooted in Mumbai, and that the infringing activities extend beyond local jurisdiction. The court accepted this reasoning, enabling the suit to proceed.
The suit names 18 defendants, including unknown infringers, technology platforms, AI developers, digital media companies, e-commerce entities, and government bodies. Among the reliefs sought are permanent injunctions, content takedowns, and damages, as well as a to cover unidentified infringers. The matter has been posted for further hearing on . The ad-interim relief will continue until further orders. Defendants have been directed to file affidavits in reply within six weeks, with Prabhu’s rejoinder due three weeks thereafter.
Implications for in the Digital Age
This judgment marks a significant step in the evolution of law in India, particularly in the context of generative AI. The court’s explicit recognition that , AI chatbots, and violate both constitutional rights and provides a robust template for other celebrities and public figures seeking protection. The order also clarifies the obligations of intermediaries under the IT Rules when faced with clear violations of personality and .
Legal practitioners should note the court’s emphasis on the inadequacy of monetary damages once harmful content goes viral. The injunction’s forward-looking nature—covering future similar content upon notification—creates a dynamic mechanism that can adapt to rapidly evolving digital misuse. The reference to prior orders in Akshay Kumar, Shruti Haasan, and Preity Zinta signals that Indian courts are building a consistent body of precedent in this area.
Furthermore, the case underscores the tension between freedom of expression and the right to dignity and privacy. By balancing the intermediary’s obligations with the right to object, the court has attempted to craft a remedy that respects both interests. For lawyers advising clients in the entertainment and technology sectors, this order provides a clear roadmap for seeking emergency relief against AI-generated impersonation and unauthorised commercial exploitation.
Looking Ahead
The December 2026 hearing will be closely watched, as the court may issue further directions on the scope of permanent relief, damages, and the responsibilities of AI developers. The case also raises broader questions about the liability of platforms that host user-generated AI content and the need for legislative clarity on and digital impersonation. For now, the has sent a strong message: the unauthorised use of a person’s identity—whether through , chatbots, or merchandise—will not be tolerated, and the law is equipped to respond swiftly.
