Bombay HC Allows Preity Zinta to Sue Google and Meta Over AI Deepfakes: Personality Rights and IT Rules 2026
- Kaustav Chowdhury
- 7h
- 3 min read
On June 16, 2026, the Bombay High Court passed a significant procedural order in a suit filed by actor Preity Zinta against Google LLC and Meta Platforms Inc. Justice Abhay Ahuja granted leave to sue under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, allowing the matter to proceed despite the respondents being incorporated outside the Court’s territorial jurisdiction. While procedural in nature, the underlying dispute raises pressing questions about personality rights, AI-generated deepfakes, and intermediary obligations under India’s newly amended IT Rules.
What the Suit Alleges
Zinta’s plaint details a range of alleged misuses of her likeness across platforms owned or operated by Google and Meta. The claims include deepfake videos superimposing her face onto other content, digitally manipulated images, memes distorting her public persona, and the creation of AI chatbot personas mimicking her identity without authorisation. The suit contends that both platforms failed to act with adequate urgency when notified.
The legal basis invoked is threefold: personality rights (which Indian courts have increasingly recognised as a facet of the right to privacy under Article 21), copyright over her photographs and performances, and moral rights under Sections 57 and 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957. Moral rights, which protect attribution and integrity, are particularly relevant where AI tools alter original works beyond recognition. Courts dealing with digital privacy and the right to be forgotten have already acknowledged that an individual’s control over their digital identity is a constitutionally protected interest.
Personality Rights in Indian Law: Where Things Stand
India does not have a standalone statute governing personality rights. Protection has evolved through High Court decisions, most notably the Delhi High Court’s 2023 orders involving Amitabh Bachchan and Anil Kapoor. These established that a celebrity’s name, voice, image, and other identifiable attributes are protectable against unauthorised commercial exploitation, drawing on Article 21 privacy rights and principles of passing off.
The Zinta suit pushes the boundary further by targeting AI-generated content specifically. Previous personality rights cases dealt with human-created imitations or unauthorised endorsements. Here, the grievance centres on synthetically generated material produced by generative AI tools. This distinction matters because a single deepfake video can be replicated across dozens of accounts within hours, far outpacing any manual notice-and-takedown process.
The IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Amendment Rules 2026
The regulatory backdrop has shifted with the notification of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, published on February 10, 2026. These amendments introduce "synthetically generated information" (SGI) into the intermediary framework for the first time, creating specific obligations for platforms hosting or distributing AI-generated content.
The key provisions include:
becomes especially fraught when AI can extract a person’s voice from a phone recording and generate entirely new speech in their likeness.
Why Clause XII of the Letters Patent Matters
The procedural aspect of this order deserves attention. Google LLC and Meta Platforms Inc. are both incorporated in Delaware and have no registered office within the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction. Clause XII of the Letters Patent (applicable to the Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts) provides a mechanism for the Court to grant leave to sue a party outside its jurisdiction when satisfied that a legitimate cause of action exists.
Justice Ahuja’s grant of leave signals that the Court found a prima facie case warranting adjudication, though it does not amount to any finding on the merits. The respondents remain free to challenge jurisdiction, and the substantive hearing on personality rights and intermediary liability lies ahead. Cases involving data breaches and platform liability have demonstrated that Indian courts are increasingly willing to assert jurisdiction over foreign technology companies when Indian users or Indian-origin content is at stake.
Broader Implications for the Tech and AI Ecosystem
This case sits at the convergence of several legal and technological trends that will shape digital regulation in India.
First, the 3-hour takedown window under the 2026 Rules is among the most aggressive globally. The EU’s Digital Services Act, by comparison, requires "expeditious" action without specifying a fixed number of hours. If enforced strictly, the Indian standard could force platforms to invest in automated deepfake detection systems, a technically demanding undertaking.
Second, the traceable metadata requirement raises questions about interoperability. If a deepfake is generated on one platform and re-uploaded to another, the metadata chain may break at each transition. The rules do not yet address liability apportionment when traceability fails. Similar challenges have arisen in cases involving telecom fraud and intermediary accountability, where courts have had to determine which entity in a chain of service providers bears responsibility for the resulting harm.
Third, the interplay between personality rights and the Copyright Act remains unresolved. A deepfake using a celebrity’s face may infringe personality rights without reproducing any copyrighted work. Conversely, an AI-generated video mimicking a copyrighted performance may attract copyright claims but not personality rights claims. Courts will need to develop a coherent framework addressing both dimensions.
Comments