Calcutta High Court Calls Out Prima Facie Bias in ChatGPT Results, But Waits for OpenAI’s Hearing

Calcutta High Court Calls Out Prima Facie Bias in ChatGPT Results, But Waits for OpenAI’s Hearing

Introduction

The Calcutta High Court has held that IndiaMART InterMesh Limited has made out a strong prima facie case of selective and unfair exclusion from ChatGPT-generated search results. However, the Court declined to grant ad-interim relief at this stage, holding that such relief would effectively amount to granting final relief without hearing OpenAI Inc. and the other respondents.

Factual Background

IndiaMART operates one of India’s largest business-to-business (B2B) e-commerce platforms, providing free and paid listings to buyers and sellers, particularly small and medium enterprises. The platform functions through its website and mobile application, claims operations across more than forty countries, employs approximately 3,000 people, and asserts that its trademark “IndiaMART” has been recognised as a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The grievance arose when IndiaMART allegedly found that its website and listings were not being surfaced or referenced by ChatGPT, while other competing e-commerce platforms continued to appear in AI-generated responses.

Procedural Background

IndiaMART instituted a suit before the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court against OpenAI Inc. and others, alleging unlawful exclusion and discrimination. The matter was heard by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, who passed the impugned order on 24 December 2025. Although the matter was taken up urgently as a Day’s List case, the respondents remained unrepresented despite service.

Issues

1. Whether IndiaMART had established a prima facie case of selective discrimination by an AI intermediary.

2. Whether exclusion from ChatGPT results could cause commercial injury, loss of goodwill, and reputational harm.

3. Whether ad-interim relief could be granted without hearing OpenAI and other respondents.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: IndiaMART alleged that its exclusion from ChatGPT amounted to trade libel through implied disparagement, dilution of its well-known trademark, injurious falsehood, unlawful interference with business, and unfair competition. It contended that OpenAI, acting as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, had relied mechanically and without notice on reports of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in which IndiaMART’s name appears. IndiaMART further pointed out that other platforms named in USTR reports such as DHGate, Pinduoduo, Shopee, and Taobao continue to be surfaced on ChatGPT, indicating selective and discriminatory application of standards.

Respondents: At this stage, no submissions were advanced on behalf of the respondents, who remained unrepresented before the Court.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Kapur recorded a clear prima facie view that IndiaMART appeared to have been selectively excluded “without any logic”, and that such exclusion would inevitably result in loss of goodwill, reputation, and commercial standing. The Court found substance in the grievance that reliance was placed on USTR reports without prior notice, hearing, or independent assessment.

The Court also took note of a press release issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, clarifying that USTR reports are not binding on India, and that the country is under no obligation to act upon them. Justice Kapur observed that this crucial aspect had not been considered by the respondents.

At the same time, the Court cautioned that granting ad-interim relief such as direct inclusion of IndiaMART on ChatGPT would virtually amount to passing a final decree. Despite the apparent strength of the petitioner’s case, principles of natural justice required that OpenAI and other respondents be given a fair opportunity to be heard before any such order affecting their operations was passed.

Decision

While holding that IndiaMART has made out a strong prima facie case of unfair and selective discrimination, the Calcutta High Court declined to grant ad-interim relief at this stage. The Court directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on 13 January 2026 and ordered IndiaMART to effect fresh service on the respondents through courier, email, and other permissible modes, ensuring their participation before any interim or final orders are considered.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Mr. S.K. Bajoria, Mr. Dhruv Chaddha, Ms. Gargi Vashistha, Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee and Mr. Akash Munshi, Advocates.