Celebrity Rights Misused For Commercial Gain | Madras High Court Finds Prima Facie Violation | Orders Meta To Remove Fake AI Content And Misleading Links
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has held that prima facie evidence suggests misuse of a celebrity’s personality rights for commercial purposes on social media platforms. The Court directed respondents, including Meta Platforms Inc., to take down specific links allegedly infringing upon the plaintiff's image and voice. It further ordered that any similar infringing links subsequently identified and communicated by the plaintiff shall also be taken down in accordance with the interim injunction. The Court issued notice to the respondents, returnable by the next hearing date.
The applicant, a renowned artist, filed a suit seeking protection against the alleged misuse of her personality rights on various social media platforms. In addition to the primary relief sought in the suit, the applicant filed multiple interim applications seeking injunctive relief.
The applicant submitted that she has an established reputation and active presence on social media. She contended that the first and second respondents were hosting content where her images had been misused. In particular, she claimed that these images had been manipulated and were being used to lure the public into making financial investments.
Additionally, the applicant raised concern regarding the alleged use of artificial intelligence (AI) to mimic her voice. According to the submissions, this mimicked voice, combined with fake images, was presented on social media platforms in a manner that could mislead the public.
In support of the allegations, the applicant placed reliance on documentary evidence compiled in the paper book. Specific reference was made to pages 450 and 451, which purportedly displayed fake images used for misleading advertisements. Further reference was made to pages 505 to 508, which allegedly demonstrated a side-by-side comparison between content from the applicant’s verified social media account and the infringing material.
The applicant submitted that such acts not only infringed her personality rights but also amounted to unauthorized commercial exploitation of her image and voice. Accordingly, she prayed for urgent interim relief to prevent continued misuse pending adjudication of the main suit.
On behalf of the applicant, learned counsel argued that the actions of the first and second respondents facilitated the dissemination of infringing content. It was further submitted that such dissemination was by unnamed defendants who exploited the platform’s services to reach the public.
The applicant contended that the use of her personality traits did not fall within the scope of fair use exceptions under intellectual property law. It was therefore asserted that the removal of the infringing material was necessary to protect her commercial and moral rights as a public figure.
The Court considered the submissions and documents placed before it, forming a prima facie view regarding the issue of misuse and the necessity for protective measures.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy recorded that, on a preliminary assessment of the material placed on record, there appeared to be sufficient grounds to indicate that the plaintiff’s celebrity status and personality rights had been misused. The Court stated: “On prima facie assessment, it appears that the celebrity status and personality rights of the plaintiff have been misused for commercial purposes.”
The Court further observed that the defence of fair use did not appear applicable in the present circumstances. It was recorded: “It also appears that the use by the unnamed defendants through defendants 1 and 2 would not fall within the fair use exception.”
Considering the materials placed before it and the nature of allegations, the Court concluded that a case for interim injunction had been made out. It recorded its conclusion as follows: “Therefore, there shall be an order of interim injunction directing respondents 1 and 2 to take down the links mentioned in paragraph 35 of the plaint.”
The Court also considered the possibility of new infringing content being identified during the pendency of proceedings. Addressing this contingency, the Court directed: “If similar links are identified by the plaintiff and communicated to the first and second respondents, such link shall also be taken down in terms of this order.”
The Court, after recording its findings, directed that an interim injunction be granted, requiring respondents 1 and 2 to take down the links specified in paragraph 35 of the plaint.
It further directed that, in the event the plaintiff identified and communicated similar infringing links, such links should also be taken down in accordance with the order.
The Court issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 11.06.2025, and permitted private notice. The applicant was directed to comply with the requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter was directed to be listed on 11.06.2025 for further hearing.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.S. Bharath, Advocate
For the Respondents: Not recorded at this stage of interim order
Case Title: Dr Anita R Ratnam v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Others
Case Number: O.A. Nos. 468 to 472 of 2025 and A.No.2251 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.119 of 2025
Bench: Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
[Read/Download order]
