The Bombay High Court on Wednesday raised significant questions about the legality of Artificial Intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without their consent, during the hearing of a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty Kundra.

The matter, titled Shilpa Shetty v. getoutlive.in & Ors., concerns the alleged misuse of the actor’s image, voice and likeness through morphed visuals, deepfake content and AI-generated interactions. Justice Sharmila Deshmukh questioned how online platforms could permit users to “have a chat” with an AI version of a celebrity without obtaining consent from the concerned individual.

“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 Court asked the lawyer appearing for an AI chatbot platform accused of misusing Shetty’s persona. When the platform’s counsel argued that its algorithm did not require permission from celebrities, the Court pressed further, drawing a distinction between users uploading content and AI systems knowingly generating simulated personalities.

“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 observed. The Court directed the platform to file a detailed reply.

In December 2025, a vacation Bench had already ordered the immediate takedown of morphed and AI-generated content misusing Shetty’s likeness across platforms. On Wednesday, the Court considered broader reliefs sought by the actor to restrain over 30 platforms, including AI services and e-commerce websites, from hosting unauthorised content.

The Bench also expressed concern over YouTube commentary discussing pending court proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, questioning whether individuals had the right to comment on such matters outside recognised news reporting. The Court noted that authenticated accounts of proceedings typically come from established media houses and raised concerns about the potential for unverified content to malign parties.

Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI chatbot entity submitted that infringing URLs were removed upon notice. Shetty’s lawyer disputed this claim. The Court permitted Shetty to move an application alleging non-compliance if links remained accessible.

While e-commerce platforms such as Amazon stated they would continue removing listings upon notification, the Court clarified that directions to intermediaries would operate on a “take-down on notice” basis. Tenor, which described itself as an intermediary-style GIF platform incapable of proactive monitoring, was directed to file an affidavit opposing the broader injunction.

Also Read: EXCLUSIVE: Ram Gopal Varma breaks down why personality rights may not work in the AI era, calls it a “grey area”