Introduction:
In the matter titled T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS, the Delhi High Court, through its vacation bench led by Justice Prathiba M Singh, delivered an important interim order that reaffirmed the protection of personality rights, broadcast reproduction rights, and the integrity of digital content distribution platforms. The case was initiated by TV Today Network Limited, the parent company of Aaj Tak news channel, and Anjana Om Kashyap, the Managing Editor (Special Projects) and a prominent news anchor. The plaintiffs approached the Court seeking an urgent takedown of a fake YouTube channel operating under the deceptive name “AnajanaomKashya.” This imposter channel was using the name, image, voice, and news clippings associated with Kashyap, combined with deepfake impersonations and fabricated content that mimicked legitimate broadcasts of Aaj Tak.
Arguments:
The plaintiffs argued that the said content not only infringed upon their intellectual property and broadcasting rights but also had the potential to mislead the public, damage their reputation, and erode the credibility of their journalism. They submitted that such channels, lacking editorial accountability, could disseminate false and misleading information under the guise of authentic journalism, which in today’s media environment poses grave threats to the dissemination of truth and the public’s right to accurate news. Their legal counsel, Mr. Hrishikesh Barua and Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, pointed out that the impersonator had created a profile and uploaded videos designed to appear as though they originated from Kashyap or her employer, thereby fraudulently appropriating their identity for commercial gain. They further asserted that the YouTube channel was monetized and the impersonation was being used to generate revenue, a clear violation of the legal rights conferred upon the plaintiffs by virtue of their brand identity, broadcast ownership, and individual personality rights.
On the other side, counsel for Google LLC and other defendants—represented by Ms. Mamta R Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shrutima Ehersa, Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Ms. Himani Sachdeva, and Ms. Devanshi Raj—were asked to respond on the technical capability to take down such content and disclose the identity and financial account details of the channel owner. Justice Singh, noting the serious nature of the impersonation and the potential harm it posed to public trust and the plaintiffs’ reputations, observed that the use of the full name “Anjana Om Kashyap,” with a slight alteration in spelling, along with her image and voice to publish fabricated content, was “contrary to law” and “prima facie illegal.”
Judgement:
The Court emphasized that the proliferation of such deepfake profiles and cloned content on widely accessible platforms like YouTube threatens journalistic accountability, misleads the public, and could subject legitimate broadcasters to unwarranted liabilities for content they never produced. Justice Singh also remarked that, in the context of news broadcasting, the responsibility of maintaining factual integrity and ethical dissemination lies squarely with verified broadcasters and their editorial teams, and not with anonymous content creators operating outside the realm of regulation. The Court categorically held that even if the videos uploaded on such a channel consisted of original content, they could not be disseminated by anyone other than the rightful owners of the broadcast—TV Today Network and Kashyap herself—since they hold the Broadcast Reproduction Rights. On the question of fabricated or deepfake content, the Court noted that such videos not only deceived viewers but could also unfairly implicate the plaintiffs in the spread of misinformation, leading to reputational and professional harm. In light of this, the Court passed a series of crucial interim directions. First, it ordered Google LLC to immediately take down the identified YouTube channel impersonating Kashyap. Second, it directed that the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of the impugned channel’s creator, including email, IP address, and associated mobile number, be disclosed to the plaintiffs within two weeks. Third, the Court mandated that Google LLC file an account of all revenue that may have been paid to the impersonator in connection with the channel within four weeks. This action aims to identify any unjust enrichment through fraudulent misrepresentation of the plaintiff’s identity. Significantly, the Court also laid down a future protocol, directing that if the plaintiffs were to identify any further fake YouTube pages or impersonations, they would be required to notify Google LLC, which in turn would have a 72-hour window to take down the infringing URLs. If Google objected to any takedown on grounds of legality or technical incapacity, such objections were to be communicated to the plaintiffs, who would retain the right to move an appropriate application before the High Court. This mechanism provided a clear, time-bound recourse for the removal of impersonating digital content while ensuring procedural transparency. Justice Singh’s observations in the order echoed broader concerns around the growing threat of digital impersonation, especially involving public figures. She stated that allowing such fake profiles or channels to operate under the guise of trusted journalists or media houses undermines the integrity of the information ecosystem and could lead to widespread dissemination of misinformation, especially in a climate of increasing digital consumption. The Court cautioned that unchecked propagation of such content could result in serious consequences not only for the reputations of individuals and companies but also for public discourse at large. Furthermore, the Court underlined the legal consequence of impersonation for commercial benefit. The use of the plaintiff’s full name, voice, and likeness, in a monetized platform without consent, amounted to unauthorized commercial exploitation of a personality’s identity—a violation of the rights to publicity and privacy, apart from intellectual property breaches. The Court’s ruling also implicitly acknowledged the urgency of judicial intervention in the evolving space of AI-generated deepfakes and identity theft. As the legal landscape struggles to keep pace with technological advancement, this judgment sets a notable precedent in asserting judicial willingness to curb malicious uses of digital platforms that infringe on personality rights and journalistic integrity. Importantly, the matter has now been listed before the roster bench for further hearing on August 11, where a more permanent resolution may be considered, possibly involving directions for ongoing content monitoring or permanent injunctions. Until then, the present order will act as a strong interim safeguard for the plaintiffs, deterring further misuse of their digital identity. By recognizing the gravity of such digital impersonations and acting swiftly to order their removal, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed its commitment to uphold personality rights, journalistic accountability, and the rule of law in the digital space.