Downloads:
— Varun Dhawan vs Artist Booking Company & Others, 2026
Recently, Bollywood actor Varun Dhawan filed a lawsuit against Artist Booking Company and Hire4Event in the Delhi High Court. He alleged that both platforms were falsely offering bookings for his appearances and performances using his name, image and likeness without his consent. Further, the suit identified the e-commerce platform Iceposter as a “habitual infringer”, citing its prior lawsuits by multiple celebrities for selling unauthorised merchandise. Dhawan also alleged that some digital platforms were using AI to create false and misleading deepfake images and videos of him, as well as to create and host pornographic content using his name and image for commercial gain.
This case highlights how AI blurs the line between authenticity and deception. It also resurfaces concerns around the current legal framework governing personality rights in India. The legislation does not explicitly define personality rights. While the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the 2026 Intermediary Guidelines address synthetically generated information, including deepfakes and impersonation, India’s framework remains reactive.
What did the lawsuit allege? Artist Booking Company and Hire4Event were infringing Dhawan’s personality and publicity rights by falsely offering bookings for his appearances and performances without authorisation.
- E-commerce marketplaces Iceposter, Amazon, Redbubble and Desertcart were allegedly selling posters, merchandise, mugs, mouse pads, calendars, pillows, phone cases, tote bags, towels, stickers and puzzles that used Dhawan’s name and photograph without authorisation.
- The suit also targeted YouTube channels, Facebook pages, Instagram accounts, and an X account that were allegedly publishing AI-generated content using his name, image, and likeness. According to the suit, some of the AI-generated content portrayed Dhawan in suggestive and inappropriate scenarios with female co-stars and other celebrities. Certain Instagram accounts allegedly used abusive and defamatory language. The court was also shown links to pornographic and inappropriate content created using Dhawan’s image and likeness.
What did the court say? Justice Jyoti Singh held that the sale of merchandise using Dhawan’s name, image, likeness and other elements of his persona to make commercial gains without his consent or authorisation is unlawful.
The court also referred to its earlier ruling in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023.
“A celebrity’s right of endorsement acts as a major source of livelihood, which cannot be destroyed by permitting unlawful dissemination and sale of merchandise or other articles, bearing the face or attributes of their persona on it without lawful authorisation.”
In the order passed on May 29, the Delhi HC observed that Dhawan has the right to protect his name, likeness, voice and image, which are elements and attributes of his persona and personality. The court further held that no third party has the right to use these attributes without his consent.
Referring to Jaikishan Kakubhai v. Peppy Store and Others, 2024 and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com and Others, 2025, the court said that unauthorised use of celebrities’ persona leads not only to commercial damage, but also “impacts their right to privacy/personality and live with dignity”.
“Plaintiff [Dhawan] is entitled to protection against dissemination of pornographic content as well as AI-generated images portraying him in an inappropriate scenario. Such a distasteful content is harming and damaging the reputation of the Plaintiff and may mislead the public into believing what is depicted may be true,” the Delhi HC said.
The court restrained digital platforms from exploiting or misappropriating Dhawan’s name, image, voice, likeness or any other attribute of his persona without his consent. This includes content created using AI, generative AI, machine learning, deepfakes, AI chatbots and face-morphing tech.
It also directed concerned parties and intermediaries to remove or disable 168 URLs identified by Dhawan relating to unauthorised bookings for his appearances, online listings for merchandise bearing his name and photographs and pornographic content. The concerned parties must remove the URLs within 36 hours of receiving the order.
Why this matters: Dhawan is one of several Indian celebrities to approach the courts to safeguard his identity against online misuse. Over the past few years, celebrities such as Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Amitabh Bachchan, Rajat Sharma, Karan Johar, Shilpa Shetty Kundra, Arijit Singh, among others, have secured similar legal protection. They sought not only compensation but also safeguards to prevent unauthorised use of their likenesses and personal data in training future AI models.
However, the lack of a clear definition of personality rights and platform liability is a major concern, particularly with the emergence of AI. Unlike the laws of the US or the European Union, Indian law does not explicitly define personality rights. In the US, personality rights are often referred to as the “right of publicity“, a transferable property right whose scope varies from state to state. This right is independent of the right to privacy, allowing celebrities to monetise their identity. Further, Tennessee’s ELVIS Act protects individuals’ right to their name, image and voice from unauthorised AI-generated use.
The EU has adopted a dignity-based model to protect personality rights under the General Data Protection Regulation, 2016, barring digital platforms from using personal and biometric data without consent. Further, under the EU AI Act 2024, deepfakes have been designated as high risk and cannot be circulated without labelling.
On the other hand, India has taken a hybrid approach. Courts have generally held that unauthorised use of AI-generated content may infringe privacy or intellectual property rights. While the IT Act 2020 and the 2026 Intermediary Guidelines address impersonation and deepfakes, they also impose greater compliance requirements and shorter takedown timelines for intermediaries; enforcement remains largely reactive and is often hindered by anonymity and cross-border data sharing.
Also read:
