Delhi High Court: Cases Cannot be Decided Based on ChatGPT Response

Delhi High Court: Cases Cannot be Decided Based on ChatGPT Response

States that Artificial Intelligence-generated data of chatbots is still a grey area on accuracy and reliability

The Delhi High Court has held that responses from Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT cannot form the basis for adjudication of legal or factual issues in a Court of law.

In the Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr vs Shoe Boutique – Shutiq case, the Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh ruled that ChatGPT could not substitute human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. The tool could be utilized for a preliminary understanding or research, and nothing more.

The Court highlighted that the response of a Large Language Model (LLM) based chatbots, including ChatGPT, depended upon a host of factors. These included the nature and structure of the query put by the user and the training data. Thus, there were possibilities of incorrect responses or imaginative data generated by these chatbots.

The Judge stated, “Accuracy and reliability of AI-generated data is still in the grey area. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that at the present stage of technological development, AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process.”

The observations were made while dealing with a suit filed by French footwear and accessories company Christian Louboutin (CL), famous for its red sole and spiked shoe style. It had alleged that Shutiq, the shoe boutique, was manufacturing identically designed shoes in several Indian cities.

Appearing for Christian Louboutin, advocate Pravin Anand said that the reputation of the plaintiffs could also be evaluated based on a ChatGPT query. When the chatbot was asked “Is Christian Louboutin known for spiked men's shoes?”, it answered in the affirmative.

However, the Court noted that on subsequent questions, ChatGPT said there were several brands known for manufacturing and selling shoes with spikes and studs and that Christian Louboutin was one of them. When it was asked about the brands, it gave a list of 10, including Shutiq.

The Court noted that the defendants’ products were indeed know-offs of the plaintiff’s distinctive shoes and footwear and Shutiq had copied all the essential features of Christian Louboutin.

Justice Singh stated, “The imitation is not of one or two designs but of many designs as the chart indicates. The acts of the defendant are nothing more but an attempt to pass off its own goods as the goods of the plaintiffs.”

She recorded the undertaking of the proprietor of the defendant company that it would not copy or imitate the designs of the plaintiffs’ footwear.

The Bench ordered, “If any breach of this undertaking is found, the defendant would be liable to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.25 lakhs as damages to the plaintiffs immediately upon such evidence coming to notice. In addition, since the defendant is also using the pictures of well-known Bollywood celebrities on its Instagram account, etc., and displayed/sold the shoes in high-end malls, it is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh as costs to the plaintiffs within four weeks. The plaintiffs are also given a refund of 50 percent of the Court’s fees.”

Advocates Pravin Anand, Dhruv Anand, Udita Patro, and Nimrat Singh appeared for Christian Louboutin.

Shutiq was represented by advocates Amit Verma and Siddhartha Luthra.