New Delhi: In a significant development for celebrity personality rights in the age of artificial intelligence, the Bombay High Court this week granted actor-producer Preity Zinta permission to file a civil suit against Google, Meta, X Corp and several other digital entities for allegedly violating her personality rights, copyright and moral rights.
Personality rights protect an individual’s identity (name, image, voice, likeness, persona) from unauthorised commercial exploitation, while moral rights protect an author’s personal connection to their creative work, ensuring attribution and safeguarding against distortion or misuse.
Speaking to ThePrint about how this case is different from traditional personality rights, advocate Rishabh Gandhi said: “Earlier personality-rights cases in India were largely about unauthorised use of a celebrity’s name, image, voice, likeness, catchphrases or other identifiable personality attributes. The usual complaint was that someone was commercially exploiting the celebrity’s identity, misleading the public, or creating a false impression of endorsement.”
“The Preity Zinta matter seems to move the issue into a more difficult technological space. The court order refers not only to images or videos, but also to AI-generated deepfake videos, memes, manipulated images, AI-generated chatbot personas and other digital content. That is a very different problem from someone merely using a photograph on a poster or in an advertisement.”
After considering the pleadings, Justice Abhay Ahuja on 16 June allowed Zinta’s petition seeking leave to file the suit.
The order, though procedural in nature, is significant because it decides if the Bombay High Court has authority to hear the case, and by doing so it sets a precedent that may be relied upon in courts in future for protecting personality rights in the digital age.
Also Read: Deepfake on duty: when I asked AI to read Op Sindoor citations
The case at hand
Zinta’s petition describes her as a “renowned, award‑winning actress, film producer, entrepreneur and widely celebrated personality”.
Her counsel argued that AI‑generated deepfakes and manipulated content not only infringe upon her copyright and moral rights but also erode her goodwill and reputation.
They relied on Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which allows a plaintiff to sue in a court having jurisdiction where she lives or does business.
Yet, the case cannot be treated as a mere copyright dispute. The grievance is far broader: it encompasses the alleged breach of personality rights, infringement of copyright, erosion of goodwill and reputation, violation of moral rights and the misuse of AI‑generated and digital content.
Unlike earlier cases where global tech companies were added merely as proforma defendants, here Google is a principal respondent.
The petitioner seeks direct relief against it, reflecting the recognition that platforms are not passive carriers but active participants in the digital ecosystem.
Why Bombay High Court
One question that arises is why Zinta approached the Bombay High Court rather than a regular civil court. The answer lies in the high court’s original civil jurisdiction under Clause XII of the Letters Patent.
Clause XII of the Letters Patent deals with the high court’s original civil jurisdiction, allowing it to entertain suits where even part of the cause of action arises in Mumbai or its territorial limits.
Since several respondents are located outside Mumbai and the alleged offending activity occurs globally on online platforms, leave under Clause XII was necessary to enable the petitioner to file the suit, and the court granted the same to Zinta.
The order records that Zinta resides and works in Mumbai, and her goodwill, reputation, and persona are situated there. Thus, part of the cause of action is local, even though dissemination is not limited to Mumbai, and is stated to be across platforms and geographies. So Clause XII leave was sought and granted.
Earlier personality‑rights cases
Discussing the case, Gandhi said that “in deepfake and AI-related cases, the concern is not only unauthorised use of identity, but also recreation or simulation of identity. That changes the nature of the harm. The role of platforms also becomes much more important”.
“In older cases, the wrongdoer was often more easily identifiable: a trader, advertiser, website operator or content creator. In AI and deepfake cases, the content can be generated, uploaded, indexed, shared, amplified, taken down and re-uploaded across several platforms. So, the court has to think not only about whether there is a violation, but also about what kind of relief will actually work in a digital environment.”
“These cases do not fit neatly into one box. A deepfake personality-rights case may involve privacy, publicity rights, copyright, moral rights, passing off, false endorsement, defamation, goodwill and intermediary liability at the same time. So, in my view, the shift is this: earlier cases were mainly about misuse of a celebrity’s identity; AI deepfake cases are about manufactured or simulated presence. That is the more serious legal challenge,” he added.
Larger impact
The order carries profound implications for the future of digital rights litigation in India.
By allowing the suit to proceed, the court implicitly acknowledges the seriousness of harm caused by AI-manipulated deepfakes and digital content.
Speaking to ThePrint, advocate Vaibhav Keni from Legasis Partners, Mumbai, said: “The personality rights suits before the high courts have already become reference points of their kind in India; every performer with a distinctive persona who qualifies as a celebrity now has a precedent to lean on. “
This could pave the way for more robust judicial and legislative interventions to regulate AI technologies that impersonate individuals without consent.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: More books, less computers in classrooms: Norway imposes strict curbs on AI use in school education