Author
Sarah Fatima is a 1st-year law student pursuing B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) at Tamil Nadu National Law University (TNNLU), Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, with an interest in technology, data protection, and cyber law. LinkedIn
Introduction
The advancements in AI (artificial intelligence) have led to an increase in the new problematic technological category called ‘deepfakes’. Deepfake technology uses AI to create hyper realistic images, audios, videos, etc of individuals and depicts them in a way they never spoke or acted, thereby misleading the viewers. This technological curiosity has now become a tool for massive exploitation such as financial fraud, disinformation, reputational harm and transmission of fake sexual content.
The law of torts as a branch of civil law is concerned with providing remedies for wrongful conduct such as negligence, damage to reputation, trespass, and so on. These doctrines were established in an era where harm was caused by an identifiable wrongdoer and could be traced easily compared to the current digital era. Any form of synthetic media can be easily created and circulated by any person and can reach across the country or world within minutes. This raises questions in the tort law as to who owes a duty of care in the creation and dissemination of synthetic media and who should be held liable for it- the creator, publisher, or amplifier?
The most important question that is raised is whether a victim of deepfake related harm can obtain a timely and adequate civil remedy under the existing tort laws.
This blog involves the study of what the traditional tort doctrines provide for the deepfake related harm, and how liability is decided across creators, AI developers, platforms, and distributors. This blog examines whether India’s civil liability framework adequately addresses deepfake harm, or whether a dedicated statutory remedy is needed.
The Rise of Deepfake Technology and Its Legal Implications
The development of deepfake technology is a result of the advancement in AI during the last decade. In the recent times, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has undergone a rapid phase of advancement due to the enhancement in technology. This advancement of AI in return has led to the emergence of deepfake technology. Deepfakes are created using AI to produce extremely realistic photos, videos, audios, and other such fabricated content. Such false and hyper-realistic content depicts individuals doing or saying something they never actually did. Initially, such technology was limited to laboratories and required high level technical expertise, however, now with the availability of AI and user-friendly applications, the creation of deepfakes has become accessible to the general public.[^1]
In the recent years, India has witnessed a massive spike in the number of incidents related to the involvement of AI generated deepfakes. These deepfakes range from celebrity impersonation and financial fraud to the circulation of non-consensual intimate content and political misinformation, which affect not only individual privacy but also pose a threat to public trust, democratic processes and digital security.[^2] The harmful effects of this are already visible, in cases such as that “of a man arrested by cybercrime branch after he made fraudulent accounts of a woman who had declined his approach, and thus uploaded more than a hundred AI-generated nude images of her using freely available tools”.^3 As a result, the sophisticated technology that was once an experiment, has become a widely accessible tool capable of producing fake digital content within seconds.
The liability in deepfakes arises in relation to a person’s privacy and personal data. Any unauthorised use of a person’s personal data to generate a deepfake violates their right to privacy, as recognised in the Puttaswamy judgement.[^4] Civil liability is distributed across the offenders such as the creator, the publisher or platform on which it is published, and the consumer, according to the intensity of their actions.
Civil Liability in Deepfake Cases
1. The Creator
The creator is an individual who creates deepfakes of someone using AI tools and has the most clearly established liability as he is the primary tortfeasor (main person who commits a civil wrong), and using such deepfakes for monetary gains or causing damage to a person’s reputation is a direct violation of their personality rights.
2. The Platform/Publisher
The liability of the intermediaries is governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the platforms are in most of the cases protected from liability as stated under the Section 79 of the act, which provides safe harbour protection to the platform.[^5]
Safe harbour protection refers to the protection given to the intermediaries saving them from liability that could arise due to the content posted by their users. However, this protection is only provided if the platform after receiving information about the deepfake or morphed content removes it from the platform within the given time frame of twenty-four hours. Failure to comply with this would result in the platform losing its safe harbour protection and could attract liability.
The publisher is a person or entity that has control over the editing and/or circulation of any content on a platform. In the case of deepfakes, the publisher has the responsibility of flagging the synthetically generated media of a person and stop it from being published. The liability in these cases is applied directly and the publisher is treated as the creator, and they do not get the safe harbour protection like the intermediaries.
3. The Consumer
The consumer of these deepfakes generally attracts no civil liability. This is because mere viewing of the deepfake content is not considered an act of a tortfeasor. However, if a person knowingly distributes or further circulates the deepfake media, then they become a kind of secondary publisher and can then be held liable for their acts.
Deepfakes, Defamation and Existing Civil Remedies
Claims against deepfakes can also be covered in the tort of defamation. Indian defamation tort law protects individuals from false statements or content and may extend to include AI-generated deepfakes that harm a person’s reputation. Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to privacy and dignity, extended to cover an individual’s control over their image, voice, and likeness.
Establishing liability, however, does not translate into a broad range of remedies because the courts and statutes currently offer only a narrow relief, which are:
1. Injunctions
The principal remedy available for deepfake related cases is injunction, as awarded in the Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.[^7] case, where he filed a case against the misuse of his personality rights. The court granted him an ‘ex parte, omnibus injunction’, meaning that the defendants were restrained from further using his persona. He was not awarded any damages or monetary compensation for the harm he suffered.
2. Damages
The defamation law in India theoretically permits awarding damages to the victims, but oftentimes the compensation awarded is not adequate compared to the emotional distress and trauma faced by the victims. Also, there is no dedicated framework deciding the amount of compensation to be given in relation to the trauma caused to the victim.
3. Takedown Orders
The takedown orders under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provides the victims with takedown orders which they can obtain in case their deepfake gets circulated. “The Rule 3(2)(b) of the IT Rules orders the intermediary to takedown within twenty-four hours any electronic content that sexually predicts an individual or exposes the private area of their body, including morphed images”.[^8]
The Need for a Dedicated Civil Remedy
Even though the courts have taken action against synthetically generated media of individuals, as in the Anil Kapoor case, this blog has demonstrated that the Indian law lacks a proper dedicated framework governing such cases related to the deepfake harm. The only remedy awarded to him was an injunction, which stopped the misuse of his identity but did not compensate him for any harm that had already been inflicted on him.
Even if the violation in Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act (2023)[^9] is established, the act remains silent on remedy once a deepfake is already circulating and there is no provision for damages sufficient enough for the reputational harm or emotional distress faced by the victims.
Victims report that “they feel powerless, violated, ashamed, and that they lose control over their digital footprint, which results in psychological effects like anxiety, depression, social isolation, and, in extreme cases, suicidal ideation”.[^10] This pattern of deepfake abuse, mainly targeted at women, has had serious impacts on their participation in public life and online presence.
“Women activists, journalists, and public figures, who have experienced such effects, say that they alter their statements, limit their online interactions, and cease using public platforms to avoid being targeted by deepfakes”.^11
Recommendations
Even though Indian courts have shown willingness to extend the existing civil doctrine regarding the liability in deepfake harm, the remedial measures for the same remain underdeveloped. There is not only a requirement for a codified civil tort law that is capable of awarding adequate remedies to the victims, but also a dedicated cyber system that takes down the fabricated content in minimum amount of time.
Few recommendations to tackle the problem are:
1. Introduce a Dedicated Civil Tort
The government should firstly introduce a dedicated civil tort which specifically deals with the deepfakes and other non-consensual digital misappropriation of an individual’s likeness. Instead of relying on the courts for their interpretation in each and every case related to the deepfake harm, the government should introduce a specific tort which has clear provisions regarding the damages and compensation, keeping in mind the emotional trauma faced by the victims.
2. Ensure Speedy and Accessible Remedies
The remedy provided to the victims in deepfake cases should be easy, speedy and of low cost, so as to ensure accessibility to all the victims. The ordinary victims in such cases should not have to go through a long litigation process to stop the circulation of their deepfakes.
3. Amend the Digital Personal Data Protection Act
The Digital Data Protection Act, 2023 should be amended to include provisions for remedy once the deepfake of a person has already been created and circulated. Instead of just confining itself to consent and data processing obligations, “the act should address the aftermath of the harm inflicted on the person”.[^12]
4. Consider Psychological and Emotional Harm
The courts should also take into consideration while deciding the amount of damages or compensation to be awarded to the victims, that the remedy awarded to the victim is proportionate to the psychological and emotional harm faced by them.
Footnotes
[^1]: Ishaan Bhardwaj & Anushree Mukte, AI-Generated Deepfakes in India: Consent, Privacy, and the Limits of Existing Cyber Regulation, 9(4) Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 2473 (2026).
[^2]: Isha Goel, Deepfake Technology and Criminal Liability in India: Are India’s Existing Criminal Laws Sufficient to Deal with AI-Generated Deepfakes?, Indian J.L. & Legal Rsch. (2026).
[^4]: Prateek Bagra, Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right in India – An Analysis of the Puttaswamy Judgment, Record of Law (Dec. 3, 2025).
[^5]: Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 79, India Code (2000).
[^6]: India Const. art. 21; id. art. 19, cl. 2.
[^7]: Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., CS(COMM) 652/2023 (Del. H.C. Apr. 30, 2024) (India).
[^8]: Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, R. 3(2)(b), G.S.R. 139(E) (Feb. 25, 2021) (India).
[^9]: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023, India Code (2023).
[^10]: Ramya Prakash & N. S. Nidhi, The Legal Victim around Deepfake Abuse: Gender, AI, and Liability in India, 6 JUS CORPUS L.J. 517 (2025).
[^12]: Ishaan Bhardwaj & Anushree Mukte, AI-Generated Deepfakes in India: Consent, Privacy, and the Limits of Existing Cyber Regulation, 9(4) Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 2473 (2026).
