Calcutta High Court Dismisses IndiaMart’s Plea Against OpenAI
The Calcutta High Court considered a petition filed by IndiaMart Inter Mesh Limited seeking interim relief against Open AI Inc. and others. The petitioner sought an order directing the generative AI model ChatGPT to display links to IndiaMart’s platform in its responses. The Court examined the maintainability of the plea and the scope of relief that could be granted at the interim stage.
The Court observed that the relief sought by IndiaMart amounted to a request for mandatory inclusion of commercial links in the output of a privately owned artificial intelligence service. It noted that ChatGPT is operated by OpenAI as a private entity and is not a public utility or a platform subject to statutory obligations of nondiscriminatory access.
On the basis of the pleadings and the material placed before it, the Court held that a private business cannot, by way of interlocutory order, compel a private AI provider to alter its algorithmic responses to showcase the petitioner’s links. The Court emphasized that no legal right exists under current law for a trader to demand visibility on a privately run AI platform.
The Court further reasoned that granting such a direction would effectively rewrite the functioning of the AI model and would impose an obligation on OpenAI that is not contemplated by any statute, contract, or prevailing judicial precedent. It stressed that the interim relief sought was not merely procedural but substantive in nature, seeking to dictate the substantive output of a proprietary service.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for interim directions. It clarified that the dismissal does not adjudicate the substantive merits of any claim IndiaMart may have regarding unfair competition, trademark infringement, or any other cause of action; it only determines that the requested interim relief is not maintainable.
The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the proceedings. The Court left open the possibility for IndiaMart to pursue any substantive remedies through a regular suit, should it wish to do so, subject to the applicable procedural rules and limitation periods.
The decision underscores the Court’s view that private AI operators are not obliged to accommodate commercial requests for visibility or to modify their services to favour particular traders. It also signals that interlocutory relief seeking to compel changes in the output of generative AI systems will be scrutinised closely and will not be granted absent a clear legal basis.
In practical terms, the ruling provides guidance to businesses that rely on AI‑generated content for marketing or customer outreach. It indicates that unilateral demands for inclusion of links or references in AI responses cannot be secured through interim injunctions. Any attempt to influence the behaviour of private AI platforms must therefore be pursued through ordinary civil proceedings, where the full range of evidentiary and legal considerations can be examined.
The Court’s order concludes the interim phase of the matter. No further directions were issued at this stage, and the matter remains pending for any subsequent substantive proceedings that the parties may choose to initiate.