Artificial intelligence has become exceptionally good at imitation. Today, with just a few seconds of audio, AI systems can recreate a person’s voice. A short video clip can be enough to generate a convincing deepfake. Faces can be replicated, voices can be cloned, and personalities can be digitally simulated with startling accuracy.

For most users, this may appear to be little more than a technological curiosity. But for artists, public figures, and even ordinary individuals, it raises a far more serious question:

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN TECHNOLOGY CAN REPRODUCE YOUR IDENTITY WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT?

The law is only beginning to confront this challenge. Across jurisdictions, regulators and courts are trying to determine how far existing legal frameworks can stretch to protect individuals against the misuse of artificial intelligence.

In India, one of the most significant regulatory responses has come through the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, which attempt to address the risks associated with AI-generated and manipulated content online. At the same time, courts have begun recognising the misuse of artificial intelligence as a violation of personality rights, while celebrities globally are increasingly relying on intellectual property law to safeguard elements of their public persona.

Together, these developments signal a broader shift: identity itself is becoming a legally protectable asset in the age of artificial intelligence.

INDIA’S NEW RULES ON SYNTHETIC CONTENT

India’s response to AI-generated content has taken shape through the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on 10 February 2026 and brought into force on 20 February 2026.

The amendments focus specifically on what the rules describe as “Synthetically Generated Information” (SGI). SGI refers to audio, visual, or audio-visual content that is artificially created or altered using a computer resource, in a manner that makes it appear authentic or indistinguishable from real-world content. The definition covers deepfakes, AI-generated voice recordings, manipulated videos, and other forms of digitally fabricated media capable of misleading viewers. At the same time, the rules carefully exclude routine digital editing practices. Basic accessibility improvements, formatting adjustments, or legitimate editing of documents are not intended to fall within the definition. The regulatory focus is therefore clearly aimed at deceptive or misleading synthetic content, rather than the everyday use of digital tools.

NEW RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DIGITAL PLATFORMS

Perhaps the most significant feature of the 2026 amendments is the fundamental shift in the role expected of digital intermediaries. Platforms are no longer viewed merely as passive conduits for user-generated content; they are increasingly being positioned as active gatekeepers in the evolving digital ecosystem.

Platforms that enable the creation, modification, hosting, or sharing of synthetic content must now ensure that such content is readily identifiable as AI-generated. This obligation goes beyond simple disclosure requirements. Synthetic images and videos must bear clear and prominent labels, while AIgenerated audio must be accompanied by an upfront disclosure alerting listeners to its artificial nature. The objective is straightforward, users should not be left guessing whether what they are seeing or hearing is real.

The amendments also introduce a strong emphasis on traceability. Intermediaries must embed permanent metadata, provenance markers, and unique identifiers into synthetic content, creating a verifiable trail back to the technological system or computer resource responsible for its creation or modification. Equally important, platforms must ensure that these identifiers cannot be removed, altered, suppressed, or otherwise tampered with by users. In essence, every piece of synthetic content is expected to carry a durable digital signature that remains attached to it as it moves across the internet.

The regulatory expectations do not stop at labelling and traceability. Platforms are also required to deploy technological safeguards capable of proactively preventing the creation and dissemination of particularly harmful forms of synthetic content. This includes child sexual exploitative and abuse material (CSEAM), non-consensual intimate imagery, fabricated electronic records, content designed to facilitate unlawful activities involving explosives or arms, as well as deceptive deepfakes and impersonation-based content. The emphasis is no longer solely on removing unlawful material after it appears online, but increasingly on preventing such content from being generated or circulated in the first place.

The compliance burden extends beyond content moderation and technical safeguards. The amendments also seek to strengthen user awareness and institutional accountability by requiring intermediaries to engage more actively with their user communities. Platforms must notify users at least once every three months of their privacy policies, platform rules, and the consequences of violating them, including the possibility of content removal, account suspension, or termination. To ensure broader accessibility, such notifications must be provided in English or in any language specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

The amendments further require intermediaries to align their legal and compliance frameworks with India’s evolving criminal law regime. References to the erstwhile Indian Penal Code are expected to be updated to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, across terms of service, internal policies, and operational manuals. In parallel, platforms must establish clear reporting mechanisms for synthetic content related offences and co-operate with law enforcement authorities where unlawful content is detected. Particular emphasis is placed on offences involving children, including material that may attract liability under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), underscoring the expectation that intermediaries play an active role not only in detecting harmful content but also in facilitating its reporting and investigation.

Taken together, these obligations reflect a broader regulatory philosophy: synthetic content should be transparent, traceable, and accountable. The message from regulators is unmistakable. In an era where generative AI can create highly convincing digital realities, platforms are expected not only to host content, but also to play an active role in ensuring that the digital environment remains trustworthy and safe.

FASTER COMPLIANCE AND GREATER USER ACCOUNTABILITY

The amendments also tighten procedural timelines for intermediaries, significantly accelerating their compliance obligations. In certain circumstances, the time available for platforms to act upon government or court orders has been drastically reduced from thirty-six hours to just three hours, requiring intermediaries to remove or disable access to content within three hours of receiving a court order or an order from an authorised government officer. For particularly sensitive violations, including non-consensual deepfake nudity and intimate imagery, platforms must act even more swiftly and ensure removal within two hours of receiving a valid complaint or direction. To facilitate compliance with these compressed timelines, intermediaries are expected to maintain round-the-clock rapid response mechanisms capable of addressing urgent content moderation requests.

Grievance redressal timelines have also been shortened. User complaints must be acknowledged within 24 hours and the disputes must be resolved or disposed within seven days. In addition, certain urgent grievances, such as those involving identity theft, impersonation, or privacy violations, must be resolved within thirty-six hours, reflecting the heightened emphasis on prompt remedial action.

Intermediaries must further notify their users at least once every three months about platform rules and the potential consequences of misuse. These consequences may include suspension of accounts, removal of content, or reporting unlawful activity to law enforcement agencies. Users must also be informed that misuse of digital services may attract penalties under statutes such as the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The amendments therefore combine platform accountability with user awareness, signalling a more interventionist regulatory approach. The obligations become even more stringent for Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), namely platforms with a large user base. Such intermediaries must require users to disclose whether the content they upload is synthetically generated, and are expected to deploy technical tools to verify these declarations before making content publicly accessible. Where content is identified as synthetic, it must be labelled accordingly prior to publication. Failure to comply with these due diligence obligations may result in the intermediary losing the safe harbour protection available under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, thereby exposing the platform to potential legal liability.

COURTS STEP IN

While regulators are addressing the technological infrastructure of synthetic media, courts are increasingly confronting the personal consequences of AI misuse.

Indian courts have begun recognising that artificial intelligence can infringe upon personality rights, particularly when it replicates an individual’s voice, likeness, or identity. In a widely reported case involving playback singer Arijit Singh, the Bombay High Court restrained entities from using artificial intelligence tools that could generate recordings in the singer’s voice without authorisation. Similarly, in proceedings initiated by the late legendary veteran singer Asha Bhosle obtained judicial protection against the unauthorised use of AI-generated content that replicated her voice and likeness for commercial purposes.

These cases demonstrate a growing judicial willingness to recognise that a person’s voice, face, and persona form integral elements of their identity, and that unauthorised digital replication may constitute a violation of personality rights.

WHEN IDENTITY BECOMES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Interestingly, some celebrities have turned to intellectual property law as an additional line of defence.

Hollywood actor Matthew McConaughey, for instance, sought trade mark protection in the United States for the phrase “Alright, Alright, Alright,” famously delivered in the film Dazed and Confused. The phrase, which has become closely associated with the actor’s persona and public image, has been protected as a sensory (sound) trade mark, recognising the distinctive manner in which it is delivered. For those interested in the registration details, the mark is recorded under Registration No. 8070191.

By securing trade mark rights in such phrases, public figures can protect commercially valuable aspects of their identity in much the same way that companies protect brand names or slogans. This strategy is particularly relevant in the era of generative AI, where distinctive voice patterns, catchphrases, and stylistic expressions can be replicated with surprising ease.

Recent global controversies illustrate this risk. Actors and musicians have increasingly raised concerns about AIgenerated advertisements, songs, and videos that replicate their voices or likenesses without permission.

In such situations, intellectual property rights including trademarks, copyrights, and publicity rights may provide an additional layer of legal protection alongside regulatory and judicial remedies.

THE LAW IS CATCHING UP

Artificial intelligence has blurred the line between the real and the replicated.

A voice can be cloned.

A face can be replicated.

A personality can be simulated.

The law, however, is still catching up.

India’s 2026 IT amendments represent an important regulatory step towards addressing the risks posed by synthetic media by imposing greater accountability on digital platforms. At the same time, judicial recognition of personality rights and the strategic use of intellectual property law by public figures indicate that multiple legal pathways may emerge to address the problem.

Ultimately, the challenge lies in balancing innovation with protection.

Artificial intelligence may have made imitation effortless. But the law is slowly beginning to insist that identity - whether expressed through voice, face, or persona cannot be freely copied without consequence.

Protecting Identity in the Age of AI: Deepfakes, Personality Rights and Platform Accountability

Continue Reading

ABOUT AUTHORS

MAHIN LAIQ