Introduction
The Calcutta High Court has held that businesses do not possess a legal right to demand visibility on private artificial intelligence platforms. Refusing interim relief to IndiaMART, the Court ruled that ChatGPT cannot be compelled to display a company’s website links or listings merely because the company believes such visibility is commercially beneficial.
Legal Issue
The key issue before the Court was whether IndiaMART could require ChatGPT to display its website and seller-listing links in responses generated for users. IndiaMART argued that its exclusion from ChatGPT responses caused loss of traffic, business opportunities, goodwill, and commercial visibility. It also alleged selective discrimination and unfair treatment.
Background
IndiaMART approached the Calcutta High Court claiming that ChatGPT was excluding its platform from AI-generated responses while providing links to competing marketplaces and supplier websites. According to the company, this reduced user access to its platform and adversely affected its business interests.
IndiaMART further contended that OpenAI’s actions were influenced by its inclusion in the United States Trade Representative’s 2024 Notorious Markets List, a foreign report that IndiaMART argued has no legal force in India. The company sought directions compelling ChatGPT to display IndiaMART links and alleged trademark dilution, disparagement, unfair trade practices, and violations of the Information Technology Act.
Court’s Decision
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur dismissed IndiaMART’s application for interim relief, holding that the company failed to establish any enforceable legal right requiring ChatGPT to display its links. The Court observed that no contract, statute, or constitutional provision obligates a private AI platform to promote another private entity’s commercial interests.
The Court noted that IndiaMART’s grievance was essentially one of reduced visibility and economic loss. However, commercial loss by itself does not create a legal right to compel a platform to provide exposure or traffic. The Court therefore found no prima facie case warranting injunctive relief.
The Court also made significant observations regarding the nature of generative AI. It noted that ChatGPT does not merely function as a traditional search engine that indexes and ranks existing content. Instead, it generates synthesized responses, which prima facie gives it characteristics of an “originator” rather than a passive intermediary under the Information Technology Act. However, the Court clarified that this issue would require detailed examination during trial.
Further, the Court held that even if ChatGPT were treated as an intermediary, IndiaMART still needed to demonstrate infringement of a substantive legal right. Since no such right was established, the claim could not succeed at the interim stage.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court concluded that there is no legal “right to visibility” on a private AI platform. The Court refused to direct ChatGPT to display IndiaMART links and held that a business cannot compel a private technology platform to promote its content in a particular manner. While the main suit remains pending, the ruling marks one of India’s most significant judicial observations on generative AI, platform autonomy, and the limits of commercial visibility claims.
Case Name
IndiaMart InterMesh Limited v. OpenAI Inc. & Others
