The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned the legality of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent [Shilpa Shetty v. getoutlive.in & Ors].
The Court asked how platforms could allow users to “have a chat” with an AI version of an actor without consent from the concerned celebrity.
The observations were made during the hearing of actor Shilpa Shetty Kundra’s personality rights suit against the alleged misuse of her image and deepfake content
In December 2025, a vacation Bench had directed immediate takedown of morphed and AI‑generated content misusing her image, voice and likeness across platforms.
On Wednesday, Justice Sharmila Deshmukh was considering broad prayers by Shetty to restrain over 30 platforms, e‑commerce sites and AI services from uploading content about her.
The judge told the lawyer appearing for an AI chatbot website, which is accused of misusing Shetty’s personality, that the website continued using personality of celebrity without the concerned person's permission.
“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?” the judge questioned.
When the lawyer for the AI company submitted that it followed an algorithm that did not require permission from celebrities, the judge pressed further on the platform’s right to do that.
The judge mooted that while users uploading photos on a website was one thing, having AI generate content that it knows is not real raised separate concerns.
“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?” Justice Deshmukh asked.
It then directed the platform to file a detailed reply.
The Bench also voiced concern over YouTube commentary on pending court proceedings involving Shetty and her husband.
“(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,” the judge remarked, questioning the defendant's counsel if she could verify the genuineness of what was being said in the video.
The judge further observed that it is only a news media house that can give a proper, authenticated account of court developments, and asked how such unverified content could be prevented from maligning parties.
The counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI chatbot entity told the Court that all infringing URLs, as and when highlighted, have been taken down from their websites.
Shetty’s lawyer objected to this claim.
The judge then allowed Shetty to move an application alleging non‑compliance if infringing links remain live.
Tenor objected to a broad restraining prayer on the ground that it is an intermediary‑style GIF platform that cannot proactively monitor uploads, The Court then directed Tenor it to file an affidavit opposing that injunction.
E‑commerce platforms including Amazon and other marketplaces told the Court they had taken down listings using Shetty’s name and images used without consent and would continue to remove products whenever specific URLs are notified.
The judge reiterated that as far as these intermediaries are concerned, directions would operate on a “take‑down on notice” basis.