Introduction
In a significant ruling at the intersection of artificial intelligence, technology law, and business competition, the Calcutta High Court has held that a private entity cannot claim a legal right to be displayed or promoted on a private AI platform.
The Court refused to direct ChatGPT to display links relating to IndiaMART, observing that there is no recognized legal right requiring one private platform to promote the business interests of another.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from a dispute between IndiaMART and OpenAI. IndiaMART alleged that links to its website and listings were not appearing in certain responses generated by ChatGPT, while links to other platforms were allegedly being shown.
According to IndiaMART, this affected its online visibility and could potentially cause commercial and reputational harm. The company sought interim directions from the Court requiring OpenAI to display its links in ChatGPT responses.
Court’s Key Observation
The Calcutta High Court rejected the request for interim relief and observed that:
- A private business does not possess a legal right to demand visibility on another private platform.
- No company can compel a service provider to operate its platform in a manner that benefits a particular business.
- Courts cannot ordinarily direct private technology platforms to display or prioritize specific links without a recognized legal obligation.
The Court emphasized that commercial interests alone do not create an enforceable right to promotion or visibility.
No Positive Duty to Promote Another Business
A central aspect of the ruling was the Court’s view that the law generally does not impose a positive obligation on one private entity to advance the economic interests of another.
The Court noted that such a duty would need to arise from:
- A statutory provision,
- A contractual obligation, or
- A specific constitutional or legal requirement.
In the absence of such a legal foundation, a business cannot insist that its links be displayed by an AI platform.
Observations on AI Platforms
The Court also examined the nature of generative AI systems and made preliminary observations regarding ChatGPT’s role under Indian information technology law.
It observed that ChatGPT’s responses are generated by the AI system itself and, at least prima facie, the platform may be viewed as an “originator” rather than a traditional intermediary or search engine. The Court clarified that this issue involves complex legal and technical questions that may require detailed examination during trial.
Commercial Loss Alone Not Sufficient
The High Court observed that the grievance raised by IndiaMART primarily related to alleged loss of traffic, visibility, and business opportunities.
However, the Court held that economic loss by itself does not automatically create a legal right requiring a platform to display specific content or links. The absence of a company’s website in AI-generated responses is not, by itself, actionable under law.
Court’s Decision
After considering the submissions, the Court refused to grant interim directions compelling OpenAI to display IndiaMART links in ChatGPT responses.
The Court held that IndiaMART had not established a legal right that would justify such an order at the interim stage.
Importance of the Ruling
This decision is significant because it:
- Addresses emerging legal issues involving AI platforms and online visibility.
- Clarifies that businesses do not automatically possess a “right to visibility” on private digital platforms.
- Highlights the distinction between commercial interests and legally enforceable rights.
- Raises important questions regarding the legal status of generative AI systems under Indian law.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling marks an important development in the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence and business rights. By holding that no private entity has an automatic right to be promoted on a private AI platform, the Court has reinforced the principle that commercial visibility must be grounded in legal rights rather than mere business expectations. The decision is likely to influence future disputes involving AI-generated content, platform neutrality, and digital competition in India.
