1. Introduction
Imagine yourself as an owner of a small factory in Rajkot that manufactures industrial fasteners. The business is listed on IndiaMART, which is India’s largest business-to-business (B2B) marketplace. One day, a potential buyer searches for sourcing industrial fasteners in India by using ChatGPT. Unlike Google, which lists all current businesses, ChatGPT provides a list of businesses that does not include yours. This ultimately led to the loss of a potential buyer before the conversation even began.
Unfortunately, this is not any hypothetical situation, but rather it is the exact concern that brought one of India’s most prominent digital businesses to the Calcutta High Court. However, the response by the Court, for the timing, has made every enterprise susceptible to consequences, especially when such businesses depend heavily on the internet for commercial visibility.
2. The Dispute
IndiaMART InterMesh Limited has been operating an electronic B2B portal since 1996, serving millions of buyers and suppliers across India. A suit was filed before the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court against OpenAI Inc. and others, alleging that its platform was being excluded in AI-generated results, while active links of competing marketplaces were provided, like those of Shopee, Taobao, DHGate, and Pinduoduo.
The basis for such exclusion was particularly noteworthy. While presenting the results, OpenAI had relied upon the 2024 Notorious Markets List published by the United States Trade Representative (USTR), which is an annual American trade watchdog report that identifies online and physical marketplaces facilitating substantial trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. Even though IndiaMART’s name appeared on that list, it highlighted the fact that India’s own Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food, and Public Distribution had issued a press release which clarified that USTR reports are neither legally binding in India nor impose any obligations on Indian entities.
Moreover, IndiaMART was not provided any notice, hearing, or even assessed independently before being excluded. On the other hand, the platforms appearing in the USTR reports continued to appear in ChatGPT responses.
Now this makes the situation critical. India already has 100 million weekly ChatGPT users. Moreover, people use AI instead of a normal Google search majorly because they expect accurate filtered responses, rather than all the suggestions available in a wide database. Now, when relying on such AI, if it removes something like IndiaMART from its results itself, before even presenting it as a possible option for the potential buyers, it ultimately results in a lost commercial opportunity.
3. The Court’s Journey
The journey of this case reveals something noteworthy. Initially, in December 2025, when the matter[1] was first presented before Ravi Krishan Kapur J., OpenAI was not present during the proceedings. By relying on the information available at that time, it was determined that IndiaMART had been excluded without any reason, which could lead to loss of reputation and goodwill. However, no ex parte interim relief was granted at that stage since passing such an order would have determined the finality of the case without providing the opposite side a fair chance to be heard.
However, the complexity of this situation was changed when OpenAI finally presented its arguments. On 20th May 2026, the same judge dismissed IndiaMART’s interim relief application, stating the absence of a prima facie case and that granting such relief would not be appropriate given the present circumstances. This reversal of opinion represents exactly how the adversarial system is designed to work, where the final decision is passed only after a complete understanding of the dispute.
4. The Legal Findings
- Can a business demand visibility on a Private AI Platform?
The most important point made by the Court was simple. It clarified that, as already well settled, a private business has the freedom to carry on its business, subject to reasonable restrictions. However, in the absence of any law or contract, no one can really force a private company to support or promote another company’s economic interests. This principle was reinforced by referring to the earlier ruling of the Delhi High Court in Google LLC v DRS Logistics 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4809, where it was held that no third party can compel a service provider to display or use its content for that party’s benefit. The same logic, when applied here, suggests that it is the discretion of a private technology platform like OpenAI to decide which content or results it will produce in the absence of a specific legal obligation.
- Is ChatGPT an Intermediary or an Originator Under the IT Act?
An issue was raised regarding whether ChatGPT is an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and as a result, whether it is subject to Rule 3(1)(n) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, and its non-discrimination obligations. At the interim stage, this was rejected on the ground that the IT Act was drafted before Generate AI came into existence. Moreover, rather than an “intermediary”, ChatGPT appears more to be an “originator” under Section 2(1)(za) since it generates responses rather than merely transmitting information like a search engine. Hence, being an originator, ChatGPT would not be subject to the safe harbour regime under Section 79 or the corresponding obligation imposed on intermediaries. However, it must be noted that this is not the final determination, and ultimately this question will be decided at the final hearing after technical, scientific, and expert evidence has been adduced.
- Does Silence Constitute Disparagement or Trade Libel?
It was argued by IndiaMART that its absence in the ChatGPT responses harmed its reputation. However, the Court pointed out that ChatGPT did not really make any false, misleading, or damaging statement, it simply excluded the business from its response. Hence, mere silence cannot be equated with making a false or harmful claim about the business.
- What about the USTR List?
It was observed that ChatGPT’s reliance on the USTR list was merely an internal business decision and not open to judicial scrutiny. This finding, along with the fact that there is no legal obligation to explain why someone was excluded, implied that a private AI platform can rely on a foreign government’s watchlist, even when it is disavowed in India, without having to justify such a decision at least at the interim stage.
5. What This Means for Small Businesses
Due to the fact that AI systems such as ChatGPT do not limit themselves to just ranking the information and forming a user’s view on particular things, an exclusion of the company from the list of answers may have a negative impact on its reputation and interests. The decision shows that at present, there is no solution in the form of legal provisions for such exclusions. In contrast to search engines, where people know about the exclusion of sources from the list of possible ones, AI does not provide users with this data, thus making them doubt the objectivity of the provided information.
6. Conclusion
Ultimately, it was decided that IndiaMART’s complaint was not of an intellectual property dispute, and that forcing ChatGPT to add or promote certain commercial links could lead to excessive litigation and hinder the platform’s functioning. The Court did not impose any such obligations at the interim stage, but did not exclude the possibility of future regulation. Crucially, this is the first Indian ruling to hold that businesses cannot force private AI platforms to promote or index them, though bigger questions about ChatGPT’s legal status, competition concerns, and fairness in AI decision-making remain open and will be decided at trial.
[1] Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited vs. Open AI Inc. and Ors. (20.05.2026 – CALHC) : MANU/WB/1117/2026
