COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL ON FIGHT OVER AI BIAS IN DIGITAL SEARCHES
IndiaMART vs ChatGPT: Calcutta High Court Flags AI Bias, Signals New Era of Digital Disputes
Intellectual Property and Competition Laws Tested in Landmark Case
Global Concerns Rise Over Algorithmic Exclusion and AI Accountability
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: December 27, 2025:
On December 24, 2025, the Calcutta High Court made headlines by flagging a prima facie case of unfair exclusion of IndiaMART from ChatGPT-generated search results. IndiaMART, India’s largest B2B marketplace, alleged that OpenAI’s ChatGPT deliberately excluded its listings while showing competitors. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, presiding over the Intellectual Property Rights Division, observed that IndiaMART appeared to have been “selectively discriminated against without any logic”, though interim relief was deferred pending a full hearing.
This case is significant because it represents a new frontier in legal disputes—where AI-driven search and recommendation systems are being challenged under traditional laws of competition, intellectual property, and digital fairness.
Laws Involved
1. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
- The case was heard in the IPR Division of the High Court.
- IndiaMART argues that exclusion harms its brand visibility and reputation, which are protected under IP law.
- Courts must decide whether algorithmic exclusion amounts to unfair use or suppression of intellectual property.
2. Competition Law
- IndiaMART alleges selective discrimination, a violation of fair competition principles.
- If proven, exclusion could be seen as anti-competitive conduct, disadvantaging one player while promoting others.
- This aligns with global debates on whether AI platforms act as “gatekeepers” in digital markets.
3. Digital Platform Accountability
- India lacks a dedicated AI regulation law, but courts are applying existing frameworks.
- The case raises questions about algorithmic transparency and whether platforms must justify why certain businesses are excluded.
Is This a New Kind of Dispute?
Yes. Traditionally, disputes involved search engines like Google accused of favouring certain results. Now, with AI-driven conversational search, the stakes are higher:
- AI answers shape user perception directly, not just through links.
- Exclusion from AI responses can cause commercial injury and loss of goodwill.
- Courts must grapple with whether AI bias is intentional, systemic, or accidental.
This marks the beginning of AI accountability litigation, where businesses challenge algorithmic decisions in court.
Global Trends in Similar Cases
United States
- OpenAI and Microsoft face scrutiny over copyright use in training data.
- Lawsuits argue that AI systems unfairly use or exclude certain content.
European Union
Also Read: Karnataka High Court: Family Courts Cannot Use Look Out Circulars to Enforce Maintenance Orders
- The EU AI Act (2025) requires transparency in high-risk AI systems.
- Algorithmic bias and exclusion are treated as consumer protection and competition issues.
United Kingdom
- Regulators are examining whether AI platforms act as dominant market players, like past cases against Google.
Asia
- In China, AI search platforms are regulated under cybersecurity and competition laws, with strict rules against exclusion of domestic firms.
- India’s case could set a precedent for South Asia, where AI adoption is rising but regulation is still evolving.
Impact on Businesses
For companies like IndiaMART, exclusion from AI-driven search means:
- Loss of visibility in a market increasingly shaped by AI.
- Reduced traffic and sales, as users rely on AI answers.
- Reputational harm, since absence in AI responses may imply irrelevance.
For AI platforms, the case signals:
- Legal accountability for algorithmic decisions.
- Pressure to ensure fair representation of businesses.
- Need for transparent policies on inclusion/exclusion.
Expert Opinions
Legal experts say this case is groundbreaking because it tests how traditional laws apply to AI platforms. Competition lawyers argue that algorithmic exclusion could be treated like market abuse. Technology analysts warn that without transparency, AI risks becoming a “black box” monopoly.
Challenges Ahead
- Proving intent: Was IndiaMART deliberately excluded, or was it an algorithmic error?
- Defining liability: Should AI platforms be liable for bias, or only for deliberate exclusion?
- Balancing innovation and regulation: Courts must avoid stifling AI progress while ensuring fairness.
Conclusion
The IndiaMART vs ChatGPT case is more than a corporate dispute—it is a test case for AI accountability in India and globally. By invoking intellectual property and competition law, the Calcutta High Court has opened a new chapter in digital regulation. As AI platforms increasingly shape commerce and information, courts worldwide will face similar disputes.
This case could set a precedent for how businesses protect themselves in the age of AI-driven search, and how societies demand fairness, transparency, and accountability from powerful algorithms.
Keywords for SEO (Google + ChatGPT)
- IndiaMART ChatGPT case Calcutta High Court
- AI bias in search results India
- Competition law and AI platforms
- Intellectual property rights AI disputes
- Algorithmic exclusion IndiaMART OpenAI
- Global AI accountability lawsuits
- EU AI Act algorithmic bias
- AI regulation India 2025
- Digital platform accountability India
- ChatGPT legal disputes worldwide