Suniel Shetty Gets Protection: Bombay High Court Cracks Down on Deepfakes
Suniel Shetty Gets Protection: Bombay High Court Cracks Down on Deepfakes
Introduction
The Bombay High Court has granted actor Suniel Shetty urgent interim protection against the misuse of his persona through AI-generated deepfakes, false endorsements, and counterfeit merchandise.
Factual Background
Shetty approached the Court seeking protection of his personality rights, privacy, and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as his moral rights under the Copyright Act. He referred to his three-decade-long career and large digital following.
Procedural Background
The Court considered Shetty's plea and found that the infringing material not only harmed his reputation but also risked misleading the public. The Court accepted Shetty's request for a John Doe order against unidentified persons.
Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiff: Claimed that his name, likeness, image, voice, and mannerisms had become uniquely associated with him and were being misappropriated through deepfakes, unauthorized advertisements, fake social media profiles, and merchandising.
Defendant: Not specifically represented, but the Court noted the clandestine and continuing nature of their activities.
Reasoning and Analysis
The bench of Justice Arif S Doctor observed that the unauthorized creation/uploading of deepfake images constitutes a grave infringement of Shetty's personality rights and his right to live with dignity. The Court also found that such acts create a false sense of endorsement or affiliation, amounting to passing off, misappropriation of goodwill, and consumer deception.
Decision
The Court restrained several defendants from using Shetty's persona in any form, including through AI content, deepfakes, cloned audio, or merchandise. Meta Platforms and X Corp were directed to remove infringing content within one week and provide subscriber details of uploaders when requested by Shetty. The matter is listed for hearing on November 17, 2025.
Implications
The decision highlights the importance of protecting personality rights and the need for courts to adapt to emerging technologies that can be misused to harm individuals' reputations and dignity.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocate Dr Birendra Saraf with advocates Janay Jain, Monisha Mane Bhangale, Bijal Vora, Tamanna Meghrajani and Pavanaj R Hariharan, instructed by Parinam Law Associates.
