The Bombay High Court questioned the legality of AI tools that simulate celebrity personalities without their consent. The Court asked how digital platforms can allow users to chat with an AI version of an actor without obtaining the concerned celebrity’s prior permission.
The Bombay High Court questioned the legality of AI tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent, asking how platforms can let users have a chat with an AI version of an actor without the concerned celebrity’s permission.
The remarks came during hearings in actor Shilpa Shetty Kundra’s suit alleging misuse of her image and deepfake material.
In December 2025, a vacation Bench ordered the immediate removal of morphed and AI‑generated content that exploited her image, voice and likeness across platforms. Justice Sharmila Deshmukh considered broad relief sought by Shetty to restrain more than 30 platforms, e‑commerce sites and AI services from publishing content about her.
Addressing counsel for an AI chatbot website accused of misusing Shetty’s persona, the judge noted the site continued to employ the celebrity’s likeness without permission.
The judge asked,
“Without the permission of the personality, can you use an AI to chat with anybody in any manner? What is your right to do that?”
When the AI company’s lawyer replied that their algorithm did not require consent from celebrities, the judge pressed further about the platform’s entitlement to act in that way.
The judge observed that user uploads of photographs are one matter, but AI‑generated material that is knowingly fabricated raises distinct concerns.
Justice Deshmukh asked, and directed the platform to file a detailed response,
“This is an AI‑generated platform that knows that it is not real. How can AI create somebody’s personality in this manner without their permission and make it available in general public?”
The Bench also expressed unease about YouTube commentary on Shetty and her husband’s pending court matters.
questioning whether the defendant’s counsel could verify the accuracy of statements made in the videos.
Questioning whether the defendant’s counsel could verify the accuracy of statements made in the videos, the judge said,
“(Does) anybody get a right to speak about the court proceedings on YouTube? It’s not a news article. I can understand if it is a journalist or a news article website,”
She added that only established news organizations can be expected to provide authoritative, verified accounts of court developments, and questioned how unverified material could be prevented from damaging parties’ reputations.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI chatbot said infringing URLs have been removed from their sites when brought to their attention, a claim Shetty’s lawyer disputed.
The judge allowed Shetty to seek a compliance application if any infringing links remain accessible.
ALSO READ: Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra Move Bombay High Court to Quash Rs.60 Crore Cheating Case
Tenor resisted a wide-ranging injunction, arguing it is an intermediary GIF platform that cannot proactively police uploads; the Court ordered Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the requested restraint.
E‑commerce companies, including Amazon and other marketplaces, stated they have taken down listings using Shetty’s name and images without consent and will continue to remove products when specific URLs are notified.
The judge reiterated that instructions for these intermediaries will operate on a “take‑down on notice” basis.
Case Title: Shilpa Shetty v. getoutlive.in & Ors
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Shilpa Shetty–Raj Kundra
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
