Bachchans Move Delhi High Court Against AI Misuse Of Voice And Image, Target YouTube, Google

Bollywood actors Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan have approached the Delhi High Court, seeking protection of their voice, image, and persona from misuse in artificial intelligence-generated content. The couple has specifically targeted Google's YouTube, urging the platform to take down infringing videos and to introduce safeguards that prevent such content from being used to train other AI models.

According to legal filings reviewed by Reuters, the Bachchans allege that misleading AI-generated content — some of it sexually explicit — has damaged their dignity, reputation, and financial interests. They are seeking $450,000 in damages from Google and other parties, along with a permanent injunction against the unauthorised exploitation of their personality rights.

The High Court has sought Google's written response by Jan. 15.

The sprawling lawsuits, running over 1,500 pages, cite 518 links and posts featuring manipulated content. Among them are fabricated scenes of the actors with Salman Khan, Aishwarya's former partner. The court has already ordered the removal of the flagged links, observing that they had caused "financial harm and injury to dignity."

India currently lacks explicit legislation protecting celebrity personality rights, unlike certain US states. But Bollywood stars are beginning to test these boundaries. Last year, actor Anil Kapoor won a restraining order against the misuse of his image, voice, and catchphrases.

The stakes are high: India is YouTube's largest market with nearly 600 million users. YouTube's policy allows creators to share their content for training by AI platforms such as OpenAI and Meta — a feature the Bachchans warn could multiply harmful deepfakes.

Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Rai Bachchan said recently that many websites are selling merchandise by using her name for which they have no authorisation.

Sethi named a website aishwaryaworld.com and said that it is not authorised. Another example Sethi gave was about an entity named ‘Aishwarya Nation Wealth’, which records her name as chairperson. Sethi argued that his client has no knowledge of this nor entered into any conversation with them.