Louboutin v. The Shoe Boutique

Delhi High Court · Delhi · India · 2023-08-22

No weight givenAcknowledged AI output tenderedchat-outputoffered by plaintiffchallenge: weight

Plaintiff’s counsel cited ChatGPT responses to support reputation claims, and the court ran its own illustrative prompts. The Delhi High Court said chatbot answers vary with prompts, may be inaccurate or fictional, and cannot decide legal or factual issues.

The court's finding, in its words

AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process.

Short verbatim extract (≤25 words) for identification; the judgment is linked below and is the record.

Decision: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · primary document read
Found via: Damien Charlotin acknowledged-AI-output lead CSV (CC0)
Notes: Downloaded lead PDF copy read; no official Indian court source or publication-ban status confirmed.

No alleged media is hosted or linked. Where the court found material genuine or fabricated, the finding is the court's; where a party merely alleged it, this page says so. Publication restrictions have not yet been checked for this row. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub