Case Note On Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited V. Open AI Inc. & Ors. The Quandary Over The Status Of AI Under The IT Act, 2000
Aditya Singh Parmar, BA.LLB, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
Manya Chhabria, BBA.LLB, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
Introduction:
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act” or “IT Act”) is the foundation of intermediary liability. By virtue of this provision, a conditional safeguard is imposed upon intermediaries and ,therefore, has become a focal point to resolve the quandary surrounding disputes taking place in the digital domain area.
Over the years, Indian courts have discussed the provision in a plethora of precedents such as Avinish Bajaj, Shreya Singhal, & Christian Louboutin Sas. These decisions have consistently affirmed that an intermediary can only claim the safe harbour exception if it undertakes a passive role and satisfies the conditions given under section 79(2) & (3).
While these judgements have remained instrumental in helping courts decide cases involving conventional intermediaries such as search engines, etc., the emergence of generative AI has raised a fresh legal question. Unlike the conventional intermediaries, AI Platforms generate responses tailored to the input given, thereby creating something novel in the process, rather than merely storing or hosting third party data or information, thereby creating a conundrum as to the applicability of section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act, 2000.
In this context, the present Case Note delves into the discussion undertaken by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc., surrounding the question-whether ChatGPT qualifies as “intermediary” or as an “originator” under the provisions of the IT Act, 2000. Such intervention by the court was called for, given the evolving nature of AI and its significance among the Indian diaspora.
