The Calcutta High Court flagged the existence of a strong prima facie case in a petition alleging unfair exclusion of IndiaMART from responses generated by the ChatGPT large language model, while deferring consideration of interim relief until a hearing that also involves OpenAI. The bench, presiding over the matter at an early stage, observed that the petitioner had raised substantive concerns regarding how generative AI systems curate responses and the potential discriminatory impact of excluding certain service providers from outputs. The petitioner argued that ChatGPT’s exclusions resulted in an uneven competitive environment affecting IndiaMART, a significant online marketplace, and that this exclusion amounted to unfair treatment warranting judicial scrutiny.
In the course of hearing, the High Court examined the petitioner’s contentions that the algorithmic design or moderation protocols of the AI system had the practical effect of sidelining specific entities such as IndiaMART when users posed queries in which such services would ordinarily be relevant. Emphasis was placed on whether such exclusionary conduct could be characterized as discriminatory or anticompetitive when an AI model like ChatGPT draws upon its training data and filtering criteria to determine which services or sources to reference in responses. The petitioner submitted that generative AI must operate in a manner that does not disadvantage particular entities without justifiable cause, especially when users expect comprehensive and unbiased information.
The Court noted that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case meriting further examination of the underlying issues, including technical aspects of the AI model, the basis for exclusions in generated responses, and whether any legal or regulatory obligations govern the fairness or neutrality of such systems. However, the bench declined to grant immediate interim relief at the present stage, stressing that comprehensive hearings involving all affected parties, including OpenAI, were necessary before arriving at an order that might affect the operation of the AI platform or its output mechanisms. The High Court reiterated that it would consider interim measures only after hearing from OpenAI and other relevant respondents to understand the technological and legal frameworks governing the development and deployment of generative AI systems.
The judgment highlighted broader legal and policy questions about algorithmic accountability, fairness in digital platforms, and the extent to which courts can intervene in disputes involving artificial intelligence outputs. The Calcutta High Court’s remarks reflect judicial awareness of evolving technological contexts where AI systems influence access to information and commercial visibility. By recognizing a prima facie case, the Court signaled the need for detailed examination of how generative AI models are designed, curated, and deployed — particularly in relation to alleged exclusionary impacts on lawful service providers.
By deferring interim relief, the High Court indicated its intent to balance the petitioner’s concerns with the need to hear all sides, including insights from those developing or operating the AI systems in question. The matter is now set for further hearings in which OpenAI and other stakeholders will be given an opportunity to present their defenses and explain the rationale behind model behavior, content selection, and any relevant moderation or training protocols. The case underscores emerging intersections between technology, competition, and judicial oversight, and it is expected to contribute to jurisprudence on how courts respond to disputes involving algorithmic decision-making and AI governance.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.