Preity Zinta approached the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction against the circulation of AI-generated deepfake videos, morphed images, and other unauthorized digital content depicting him. The case was filed as ‘Preity Zinta v. Google LLC & Ors.’When the matter came up on July 3, Justice Madhav Jamdar indicated that he would pass orders on July 6 after ordering the parties to work together on a practical mechanism for removing the allegedly infringing content from online platforms.In her suit, Zinta named several intermediaries as respondents, including Google and Meta, along with domain name registrars and several other alleged infringers. He alleged that AI-generated deepfake videos, manipulated images, and chatbot-style interactions depicting him were hosted on various online platforms. Appearing for Zinta, senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond argued that AI-generated deepfakes are becoming more sophisticated. He urged the court to grant immediate ex parte relief ordering the identified websites and intermediaries to immediately remove all infringing material mentioned in the petitions.Dhond further requested John Doe orders against the unknown infringers and sought a broader injunction preventing all persons from publishing or distributing unauthorized content created by the AI ​​with Zinta.The attorney representing Google and Meta informed the court that they have no objection to the removal of URLs containing morphed or obscene material identified by the plaintiff. However, they oppose any blanket direction that would require intermediaries to actively monitor or remove potentially infringing content. They also confirmed that some of the URLs flagged in the suit did not contain inappropriate material.A domain name registrar submitted that its role is limited to the registration of domain names and that it has no control over URLs that direct users to content hosted on social media platforms.Justice Jamdar observed that any relief granted by the court must be carefully tailored to ensure that objectionable content is removed without affecting legitimate online material. While expressing the view that the case requires protective relief, the judge ordered all parties to work together on a workable protocol that would facilitate the removal of actual infringing content while protecting legal content. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on July 6.