Delhi HC's Kriti Sanon deepfake order: what it means for brands

Another Bollywood star has gone to the Delhi High Court over AI fakes, and this order is worth reading closely if your brand uses creators, AI voices or celebrity references in its content. In Kriti Sanon v. BBE Marketing Inc & Ors., the court gave the actor interim protection on 29 October 2026, as reported by ANI on 4 November and by Medianama on 5 November.

What did the Delhi High Court order?

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav restrained the defendants, including unnamed John Doe parties, from four kinds of use until the next hearing, according to ANI and Lawchakra:

• content that impersonates Sanon or falsely suggests she is associated with someone
• explicit or morphed images, video or audio, including AI-generated material
• chatbots or voice models presented as Sanon
• merchandise of the kind placed on record before the court

Platforms were told to take down the specific URLs listed, within the time the IT Rules prescribe. Government departments were asked to block the listed websites, especially deepfake porn sites. Medianama reports that the suit named impersonation accounts on YouTube, Facebook, X and Pinterest, and that a company, BBE Marketing, was restrained from falsely claiming a link with the actor after the suit alleged it offered bookings for her.

The platforms were treated as parties that must comply, not as wrongdoers. ANI also reports the court said its order counts as "actual knowledge" for platforms under the 2026 IT Rules amendments on synthetic content, which means they cannot later claim they were unaware.

What did the court refuse?

This is the part most coverage skips. Sanon asked for a wide order covering all content that infringes her personality rights. The court declined. It said personality rights are not one single right but a bundle of separate claims, such as publicity, privacy, passing off and defamation, and each has to be proved against each defendant and each piece of content. In the court's words, they "cannot be put under one umbrella and met with one omnibus injunction", as quoted by Lawchakra.

The court also said that "the mere use of a person's identity is not, by itself, unlawful". News, reviews, criticism, commentary, satire, parody, caricature and fan expression outside the four categories are not restrained. Lawchakra adds that whether merchandise where the image itself is the product falls under publicity rights will be argued at the hearing on 10 December.

Why does this matter for creator campaigns?

Most brands will never make a deepfake. The risk is quieter. A creator uses an AI voice that sounds like an actor in a Reel. A sponsored post implies a star "uses" a product. A page sells event bookings or merch with a celebrity's face. All of these sit close to the impersonation and false-association categories the court has now restrained for Sanon.

The order is interim and specific to one actor, so it is not a general rule yet. But it is not a one-off: Medianama notes that a separate personality-rights suit by Janhvi Kapoor is also being heard. The direction is clear: judges will act fast on fakes and false endorsements, and platforms will be asked to pull content quickly. The narrower point also cuts the other way: genuine commentary, reviews and parody are not illegal just because they name a famous person.

Our take from Delhi

Briefs that ask a creator to "do a voice like" a film star, or to recreate a famous scene with AI, are getting more common. After this order, we would not run any of that without written permission from the person. Keep celebrity references to honest commentary, never imply an endorsement that does not exist, and check every AI voice and face in a creator's draft before it goes live.