Bombay High Court Orders Takedown of AI Deepfakes Misusing Actor Shruti Haasan's Personality Rights

The Bombay High Court has ordered the removal of online content identified in actor Shruti Haasan's suit and restrained the unauthorised use of her name, voice, image and likeness through artificial intelligence and other technology.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar granted the relief as an ad-interim measure after observing that the material placed before the court made out “a very strong prima facie case”. The relief will continue until further orders.

Haasan approached the court after discovering a range of online content allegedly using her personality traits without her consent. This included AI-generated deepfakes, manipulated photographs, voice simulations, chatbot personas, GIFs, merchandise and other digital content.

She identified online stores allegedly selling posters and merchandise bearing her name, image and likeness without authorisation. Haasan also pointed to websites purporting to offer bookings for her appearances or performances. Another platform was alleged to have falsely implied that it had the authority to secure her for a brand promotion.

The suit also raised concerns over AI chatbots. FlowGPT was alleged to host a profile using Haasan's name and likeness for conversations purportedly with her, while Cloud Whale Interactive Technology allowed users to chat with a profile using her name, image and likeness and purporting to be her.

An Instagram account was alleged to have circulated a morphed AI-generated reel placing Haasan in a false and inappropriate situation. She also brought to the court's notice alleged deepfake pornographic images using her likeness. The order refers to an averment that this material was placed before the court in a sealed envelope. Haasan sought action against unidentified persons allegedly involved in the infringing activity.

Google, Meta, X Corp and Pinterest were among the online intermediaries included in the proceedings. The order records allegations that infringing content was uploaded, hosted or circulated through their platforms. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications were also included to facilitate the implementation of the court's directions, if required.

Advocate Rashmin Khandekar, appearing for Haasan, relied on the Bombay High Court's July 8, 2026 order in Preity G. Zinta v. Google LLC. The court recorded that the observations in that order were also applicable to the present case.

Finding a very strong prima facie case for ad-interim relief, the court noted:

“Plaintiff has discovered numerous AI-generated deepfake videos, manipulated photographs, memes, AI-generated voice simulations, chatbot personas, GIFs, merchandise and other digital content using Plaintiff's personality traits that have been created and disseminated without her consent.”

The court observed that monetary compensation alone would not adequately remedy the harm caused by such content. Once deepfake material is disseminated online, it can be replicated and circulated without limit, resulting in lasting harm to a person's personality rights and public image.

“Such injury cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages alone, as once deepfake content is disseminated across the internet, it is capable of unlimited replication and circulation, resulting in permanent dilution of the Plaintiff's personality rights and public image.”, the court ruled.

The court further linked the protection of Haasan's personality and publicity rights to constitutional guarantees. It observed that her personality and publicity rights were protected by the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

It also referred to Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, including privacy, and observed that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity.

The court restrained those covered by its order from using or exploiting Haasan's name, voice, image, likeness, distinctive performance, appearance, mannerisms, signature and other attributes exclusively identifiable with her without her consent.

The restraint extends to the use of artificial intelligence and other technology.

It also directed the takedown, removal or disabling of access to the listings, pages and content identified in the suit. Online intermediaries were further directed to take down or disable access to similar infringing content upon receiving written notice from Haasan or her authorised representative.

Where a future notice concerns genuine photographs or other genuine material, the intermediaries can communicate their objection and reasons to Haasan. She can then approach the court for further directions.

Google was separately directed to disclose basic subscriber information relating to the YouTube channels identified in the suit.

Those against whom the proceedings were brought have been given six weeks to file their replies. Haasan may file a further response, if any, within three weeks after that. The matter is listed next on December 3, 2026