The Bombay High Court on Wednesday raised important questions on the legality of artificial intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without their consent while hearing the personality rights suit filed by actress Shilpa Shetty Kundra.
Shilpa Shetty’s personality rights lawsuit: Bombay HC questions legality of AI chatbots imitating celebrities
The case, titled Shilpa Shetty vs getoutlive.in and others, relates to the alleged misuse of the actor’s image, voice and likeness through morphed visuals, deepfake content and AI-generated interactions. Justice Sharmila Deshmukh questioned how online platforms can allow users to “chat” with an AI version of a celebrity without obtaining consent from the person concerned.
“Without allowing personhood, can you use AI to chat with someone in any way? What’s your right to do that?” the court asked the lawyer appearing for the AI chatbot platform accused of misusing Shetty’s personality. When the platform’s lawyer argued that its algorithms did not require permission from celebrities, the Court pressed further, distinguishing between users uploading content and AI systems that intentionally generate fake personas.
“This is an AI-generated platform that knows it’s not real. How can an AI create someone’s persona like this without their permission and make it available to the general public?” Justice Deshmukh observed. The court directed the forum to file a detailed reply.
In December 2025, a vacation bench had already ordered immediate removal of manipulated and AI-generated content misusing Shetty’s likeness on all platforms. On Wednesday, the Court considered the broad relief sought by the actor to stop over 30 platforms, including AI services and e-commerce websites, from hosting unauthorized content.
The bench also expressed concern over YouTube comments discussing pending court proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, and raised questions about whether individuals have the right to comment on such matters outside recognized news reporting. The Court noted that authenticated accounts of proceedings generally come from established media houses and expressed concern about the potential for unverified material to discredit the parties.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI chatbot entity submitted that the infringing URLs were removed upon notice. Shetty’s lawyer denied this claim. The Court allowed Shetty to file an application alleging non-compliance if the link remained accessible.
While e-commerce platforms like Amazon said they will continue to take down listings upon notification, the court clarified that the instructions to intermediaries will operate on a “take-down upon notice” basis. Tenor, which described itself as an intermediary-style GIF platform incapable of active monitoring, was directed to file an affidavit opposing the blanket injunction.
