Delhi High Court shields Aman Gupta from AI deepfakes and unauthorized digital exploitation

Delhi High Court Grants Comprehensive Protection Against Digital Identity Theft

On May 7, 2026, the Delhi High Court issued a sweeping ex parte ad interim injunction protecting Aman Gupta, co-founder of boAt Lifestyle and prominent Shark Tank India judge, from widespread unauthorized digital misuse of his identity. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela's order restrains over 44 defendants from exploiting Gupta's name, image, voice, likeness, and overall persona without explicit authorization1

1

. The ruling represents a watershed moment at the intersection of celebrity rights, artificial intelligence, and India's digital legal framework.

Gupta's petition outlined large-scale unauthorized use of his personality attributes across multiple platforms, including AI-generated chatbots impersonating him, fake event booking listings, sale of merchandise bearing his catchphrases, fake Instagram profiles, publication of purported contact details, and circulation of pornographic and deepfake content2

2

. The Court held that Gupta had established sufficient goodwill and public recognition to seek protection of his personality rights and trademark rights.

AI Deepfakes and Obscene Content Prompt Urgent Judicial Intervention

The Delhi High Court expressed particular concern about sexually explicit material created using AI deepfakes. "It goes without saying that the sexually explicit material/videos created by the defendants using the personality traits and attributes of the plaintiff, surely is an aspect which needs immediate and urgent consideration by the Court," the order stated2

2

. The court restrained defendants from misusing Gupta's persona through "AI, deepfake technology, or any medium" without written authorization.

To enforce the interim injunction, the court directed digital intermediaries including Google, Meta, and GoDaddy to take down infringing content and disclose specific account details associated with the violations1

1

. The order also allowed Gupta to flag newly discovered infringing URLs during the pendency of the suit, directing platforms to "forthwith lock or suspend the domain name registrations" of such websites after receiving supporting evidence2

2

.

Expanding Personality Rights to New-Age Entrepreneurs

While Indian courts have precedent protecting personality and publicity rights of traditional celebrities such as film actors and athletes, this case represents a notable expansion of those protections. It is one of the first major instances of these rights being extended to a new-age entrepreneur whose public persona was primarily built through digital media, brand building, and television visibility1

1

. The ruling underscores a broader shift in the modern business ecosystem, acknowledging that startup founders now frequently function as public personalities with distinct, monetizable identity assets.

For the startup sector, the case highlights the emerging necessity of treating a founder's identity as intellectual property, particularly given the rise of AI-driven content generation and platform-amplified impersonation risks1

1

. The order stated: "The manner in which the defendants are exploiting his name, voice, persona, slogans, registered trade marks of the plaintiff positively assert the underlying fact of plaintiffs' personality which are exclusive to him and none else"2

2

.

Broadening the Definition of Infringement

The order includes several seemingly routine internet services among the allegedly infringing material, including RocketReach, ContactOut, EasyLeadz, and RapidKings—platforms that publish or aggregate professional contact details. It also lists multiple Tenor and Giphy URLs containing GIFs featuring Gupta2

2

. This broader interpretation of what constitutes unauthorized use of his personality attributes extends beyond traditional impersonation to encompass contact aggregators and GIF repositories.

This order joins a rapidly growing body of personality rights litigation in India, from Sadhguru's injunction against deepfake scam sites to Shilpa Shetty's case against AI-generated obscene content. However, India still has no statute codifying these rights, leaving enforcement reactive rather than systemic as courts build precedent case by case2

2

. The court has directed defendants to file written statements within 30 days of receiving summons, with the case scheduled for hearing on October 1, 20262

2

.