Bollywood is witnessing an unprecedented wave of legal action as its biggest stars rush to courts seeking protection from a growing digital menace—deepfakes, AI-generated content, and unauthorised use of their identities on social media platforms. The latest celebrity to join this fight is Akshay Kumar, who approached the Bombay High Court on Wednesday seeking urgent relief against the misuse of his image, voice, and persona.Justice Arif Doctor heard Kumar’s petition and reserved the order, indicating the court would likely grant interim protection. The actor joins a rapidly growing list of celebrities including Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Amitabh Bachchan, Hrithik Roshan, Karan Johar, and Asha Bhosle who have successfully secured court protection in recent months.
The scale of deepfake abuse: From fake movie trailers to obscene content
The scale and nature of violations vary dramatically, revealing how AI technology is being weaponised against public figures. Akshay Kumar’s case highlights some of the most alarming examples. A viral fake trailer showed him as Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a non-existent film, garnering nearly 20 lakh views before being removed. Another manipulated video depicted him making controversial remarks about Rishi Valmiki, triggering protests across multiple regions.His senior advocate Birendra Saraf told the court that AI platforms now offer an “AI Akshay Kumar V2 Voice” tool that can generate speech in the actor’s exact tone from any text input. The petition also documented obscene blogs, fake gambling endorsements, counterfeit merchandise, and unauthorised use across YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter)—some content originating from the dark web.The Bachchan family faces even more disturbing violations. Abhishek and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filed a massive 1,500-page lawsuit against YouTube documenting “sexually explicit” AI-manipulated videos. One fake clip shows Abhishek kissing an actress through AI manipulation, while another depicts Aishwarya dining with former partner Salman Khan as Abhishek watches angrily—entirely fabricated scenarios. The Delhi High Court has already ordered removal of 518 links, with the couple seeking $450,000 in damages.Hrithik Roshan’s case involved unauthorised use of his images to sell bags and clothing, plus his performance videos being repurposed for paid dance tutorials. Veteran singer Asha Bhosle secured protection against AI-generated reproductions of her legendary voice. The Bombay High Court noted that such technology could create entirely new “Asha Bhosle songs” without her consent.
What are personality rights and how are courts protecting celebrities?
Personality rights give individuals legal control over how their identity—name, image, voice, signature, and likeness—is used publicly or commercially. These rights have two key components: the Right to Publicity, which prevents commercial misuse without consent, and the Right to Privacy, which guards against deepfakes, morphed visuals, and fake endorsements.The Delhi High Court has defined these rights as entitling individuals “to control and protect the exploitation of one’s image, name, likeness or other attributes of their personality, in addition to the commercial gains that can be derived from the same.”Courts have been remarkably proactive despite the absence of specific AI legislation. The Delhi High Court granted relief to Hrithik Roshan, ordering removal of commercial exploitation and AI content while making an important distinction—it refused to take down non-commercial fan pages. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed: “We can’t have fanclubs taken down at ex parte stage. Instagram use is not only commercial. People do it for fun and recreation.”The Bombay High Court has extended similar protection to Amitabh Bachchan, Karan Johar, Suniel Shetty, Rishab Shetty, and Akkineni Nagarjuna. In Shetty’s case, the court slammed the “depraved misuse of technology.” Singer Kumar Sanu also moved Delhi High Court seeking similar safeguards.Most celebrities seek “John Doe injunctions”—court orders against unknown individuals—crucial because AI content often comes from anonymous sources. These orders restrain social media platforms and websites from hosting unauthorised content.
Why the sudden legal avalanche? AI democratisation meets India’s digital explosion
Several factors have created this perfect storm. AI technology that once required expertise is now accessible to anyone with a smartphone. Voice cloning, face-swapping, and video manipulation can be accomplished in minutes.India’s massive digital presence—over 600 million YouTube users alone—provides both audience and infrastructure for exploitation. The potential for financial gain through viral fake content and fraudulent endorsements creates powerful incentives for bad actors.Celebrities face unique vulnerabilities. Their extensively documented online presence provides abundant training data for AI models. Their influence means fake content spreads rapidly and can cause real-world consequences—from public unrest to financial fraud targeting fans.The Bachchans’ lawsuit raises a critical new concern: they’re demanding YouTube prevent uploaded videos from training AI platforms like OpenAI and Meta without consent. They argue that biased AI content could teach models false information, perpetuating misinformation.The most internationally recognised victory belongs to Anil Kapoor, whose 2023 case against 16 defendants earned him a spot on Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in AI list—making him India’s equivalent of Scarlett Johansson, who similarly fought OpenAI over voice imitation.While courts have been responsive, legal experts point to significant gaps. India lacks AI-specific legislation addressing deepfakes and digital impersonation. There’s growing consensus that comprehensive laws are needed covering not just celebrities but ordinary citizens, with clear penalties and platform accountability.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source timesofindia.indiatimes.com ’
