How Bollywood icons' battle turns into full-blown industry war on AI thieves

New Delhi: A fresh wave of court cases by Bollywood names has put “personality rights” at the centre of India’s AI era. In the past week alone, the Bombay High Court granted urgent protection to Akshay Kumar, directing immediate removal of deepfake videos and calling their “realistic nature” alarming. 

The court also restrained e-commerce sellers and unknown persons through John Doe orders from exploiting his name, image and likeness.

In Delhi, Hrithik Roshan has secured takedowns of unauthorised AI content and commercial links while his broader plea to protect his name, image and likeness proceeds. 

These actions mirror recent wins for Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan, where the Delhi High Court ordered platforms and government agencies to remove infringing links within fixed timelines. 

Suniel Shetty has also obtained interim protection in Bombay, citing misuse that ranged from deepfakes to fake endorsements and even images used alongside gambling and astrology promotions.

What exactly are “personality rights” and “publicity rights”

Indian law does not have a single statute named “personality rights,” but courts have consistently treated a well-known person’s commercial right in their persona as flowing from the fundamental right to privacy. 

In practice, this means a celebrity can control commercial use of their name, image, voice and other distinctive attributes. The Delhi High Court’s Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers is widely cited for stating that the right to control commercial use of human identity is the right to publicity. 

Earlier, the ICC v. Arvee Enterprises ruling traced publicity rights to privacy and clarified that such rights belong to individuals, not events. In DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (involving singer Daler Mehndi), the court found unauthorised merchandising using a celebrity’s persona to be actionable.

Why the surge now

Three forces have converged. First, AI tools make it trivial to create convincing deepfakes that mimic a star’s face or voice. 

Second, these files spread fast across social platforms and e-commerce, fueling fake endorsements and deceptive sales. 

Third, reputational risk has grown, with courts noting public order concerns when manipulated content shows celebs making inflammatory statements. The recent orders in Akshay Kumar’s case capture this new urgency. 

What relief are courts granting

Recent orders show a common toolkit:

Takedowns and blocking:Platforms such as Google and social networks are being directed to remove infringing links within hours or days, with MeitY and DoT asked to assist where needed. 

John Doe orders: Courts restrain unknown parties in addition to named defendants, useful where creators of deepfakes are anonymous. 

Dynamic injunctions: Directions extend to future uploads of the same or similar content to prevent whack-a-mole reposting.

What this means for advertisers, agencies and platforms

Consent is non-negotiable. Using a celebrity’s persona in ads, brand integrations or merchandising without express permission risks claims in passing off, privacy and publicity rights. 

Titan v. Ramkumar remains a key guidepost. AI content is not a safe harbour. Courts are treating AI-generated lookalikes, voice clones and “parody” listings as potential infringements when they suggest association or harm reputation. 

The Bombay High Court’s language on the “realistic nature of deepfakes” underscores this risk. Intermediary diligence matters. Platforms are being told to act quickly on notices, supply basic subscriber data for offending accounts and prevent re-uploads of the same content, as seen in the Aishwarya Rai order.