No 'Right To Visibility' Exists On Private AI Platforms: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Direct ChatGPT To Display IndiaMart Links

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed IndiaMart's plea seeking interim directions against OpenAI, holding that a private business cannot compel ChatGPT to display or prioritize its website links in AI-generated responses. The Court observed that there is no legal right entitling one private entity to have its business promoted on another private platform and that any such direction would amount to dictating how ChatGPT should operate.Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the losses alleged by IndiaMart were essentially claims of pure economic loss arising from reduced user traffic and potential loss of profits. The Court noted that IndiaMart sought to compel ChatGPT to display IndiaMart website links and seller listings in responses, but "no third party can compel a service provider to use its service in a manner to reflect its link or for its benefit."BackgroundIndiaMart, an online B2B marketplace, alleged that ChatGPT Search deliberately excluded IndiaMart links from responses while providing direct links to sellers and continuing to display links to competing platforms. According to IndiaMart, this selective treatment deprived users of access to its platform, diluted its trademark, amounted to disparagement, and violated obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.The company also challenged OpenAI's reliance on the United States Trade Representative's "Notorious Markets List 2024" as a basis for limiting IndiaMart's visibility, contending that the list had no legal force in India.OpenAI opposed the plea, arguing that IndiaMart had no contractual, statutory, or constitutional "right to visibility" on ChatGPT and that the absence of IndiaMart links from AI-generated responses was not legally actionable.No Positive Duty to Promote Another's BusinessThe Court emphasized that common law generally does not impose liability for pure omissions and that, absent a contract, statute, or constitutional obligation, there is no affirmative duty to advance another entity's economic interests. It held that IndiaMart was effectively attempting to dictate how ChatGPT should provide its services and that such a demand was legally unsustainable.Rejecting the challenge to OpenAI's reliance on the USTR report, the Court held that adherence to the report formed part of OpenAI's internal business policy and was not justiciable in the present proceedings.No Trademark, Copyright or Disparagement Claim Made OutThe Court found that IndiaMart had failed to establish any intellectual property violation. It observed that there was no falsity, deception, confusion, publication, or association attributable to ChatGPT. Mere silence or non-display of a link could not constitute a cause of action. The Court further held that no case of disparagement, trade libel, or injurious falsehood was made out because there was no publication, no trademark dilution claim could succeed since mere referential use of the IndiaMart name did not amount to use in the course of trade under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and no copyright infringement was pleaded or substantiated.Observations on ChatGPT Under the IT ActWhile declining to finally decide the issue at the interim stage, the Court made notable prima facie observations regarding the legal status of generative AI under the Information Technology Act, 2000.The Court observed that traditional search engines merely index and rank existing information, whereas large language models synthesize information and generate new responses. Because ChatGPT creates original outputs rather than merely transmitting existing content, it performs functions beyond those of a conventional search engine.Justice Kapur noted that the IT Act was enacted long before generative AI emerged and that existing statutory definitions do not neatly accommodate modern AI systems. The Court observed that ChatGPT's generative qualities prima facie bring it closer to the definition of an "originator" under Section 2(1)(za) of the IT Act than an "intermediary" under Section 2(1)(w).The Court remarked: "It creates and generates or at least in part is instrumental for developing content. It provides a functions more dynamic in nature than static. Prima facie, its generative qualities therefore, make it fall within the scope of an 'originator' under Section 2(za) of the Act."However, the Court acknowledged that a competing argument exists—that users provide the prompts and intent, while the platform merely provides the AI resource—and held that the issue requires detailed examination at trial, possibly with expert evidence.Holding that IndiaMart had failed to establish any prima facie legal right, infringement, or actionable wrong, and that the balance of convenience was against granting relief, the Court dismissed the interim application and directed the parties to proceed toward an expeditious hearing of the...

No 'Right To Visibility' Exists On Private AI Platforms: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Direct ChatGPT To Display IndiaMart Links

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

No 'Right To Visibility' Exists On Private AI Platforms: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Direct ChatGPT To Display IndiaMart Links

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers