MediaNama’s Take:
IndiaMART’s case is not about whether ChatGPT should mention one marketplace over another. It raises a more serious question: can an AI system decide which businesses appear on the commercial web without explaining how it makes those choices? The Calcutta High Court’s (HC) prima facie observation matters because it treats exclusion by an AI interface as a real market action, not a harmless technical outcome.
The issue becomes sharper with OpenAI’s alleged reliance on the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) reviews. If an AI platform uses non-binding foreign trade reports to limit the visibility of Indian businesses without notice or explanation, it effectively brings external policy judgments into domestic markets through code. That shifts decision-making power away from transparent regulation and into opaque algorithmic systems.
This approach mirrors concerns already flagged by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which has warned that AI systems can distort competition and market outcomes through automated decision-making, even in the absence of human intent.
By recognising that silence in AI outputs can cause reputational and commercial harm, the Calcutta HC signals that discovery layers no longer sit quietly in the background. They shape outcomes.
How this case moves forward will help determine whether AI intermediaries in India must explain exclusions that affect market access, or whether automated systems can continue to exercise economic power without clear safeguards.
What’s the News
IndiaMART InterMESH Limited has moved the Calcutta HC against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT selectively excluded the company from AI-generated responses while surfacing rival business-to-business (B2B) marketplaces.
When the matter came up on December 24, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that IndiaMART had made out a strong prima facie case of selective discrimination, observing that the exclusion appeared to have occurred “without any logic”. Moreover, the court acknowledged that such exclusion could lead to loss of goodwill, reputation, and commercial injury.
However, the HC declined to grant ad-interim relief. The court reasoned that directing changes to ChatGPT’s outputs at this stage would effectively amount to granting final relief without hearing OpenAI and the other respondents. The Calcutta HC has also ensured that it will hear the matter promptly after the judiciary’s winter vacation.
What IndiaMART Is Asking the Court to Do
At the interim stage, IndiaMART has asked the court to stop what it describes as continuing harm caused by its exclusion from ChatGPT responses. Specifically, the company has sought an interim injunction restraining OpenAI from blacklisting, excluding, or otherwise preventing IndiaMART’s website, mobile application, and live product listings from being surfaced in ChatGPT-generated outputs.
Additionally, IndiaMART has asked the…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
