Court orders Meta to remove identified Ranaut content

Justice Vikas Mahajan directed Meta Platforms Inc to remove content identified by Ranaut and permanently take it down.[2] The company must act within 72 hours after receiving a copy of the order.[1] The order covers videos, reels, posts, accounts and channels that unlawfully use or imitate Ranaut’s persona.[1] The deadline makes the identification and handling of covered material an immediate compliance issue for the platform. The order remains in force until the next hearing date.[2]

The court restrained unauthorised use of Ranaut’s name, image, likeness, voice, speeches, persona and other personality attributes.[1] The restraint specifically includes AI-generated content, deepfakes, synthetic media, manipulated videos and audio, fabricated speeches, false endorsements and impersonation content.[2] It also addresses false suggestions that Ranaut is associated with, affiliated with, endorsing or authorising something.[2] The court said personality-rights protection extends to AI-generated, morphed, sexual and explicit deepfake content.[2]

Ranaut’s suit sought protection of her personality and publicity rights, alleging that fabricated statements, AI-generated content, morphed images and manipulated audio-visual material depicting her were circulating online.[2] The court said her status gave her proprietary rights over her personality and associated attributes, including protection from unauthorised use and commercial exploitation.[2] It noted that the material could mislead ordinary viewers into believing it was genuine and could potentially damage her reputation.[2] The court found that the material listed in Annexure A made out a prima facie strong case in her favour.[2]

Directions are to be issued to internet and telecom providers to block identified infringing websites within two weeks.[1] Meta and government departments must file compliance affidavits within two weeks.[2] Removal or disabling of access may occur without fresh proceedings.[2] A website or social media account that is not primarily infringing but is blocked may seek relief by undertaking not to infringe Ranaut’s personality rights.[2] The court also said defendants may ask Ranaut to clarify how URLs listed in Annexure A and Document K fall within the order’s scope.[2]