The Calcutta High Court has refused IndiaMART’s plea to order OpenAI to include its listings in ChatGPT responses, a ruling that highlights unresolved issues around AI platform gatekeeping and competitive neutrality in India’s expanding AI market.
- Court rejects IndiaMART’s plea to show links in ChatGPT results
- OpenAI’s exclusion based on U.S. trade watchlist, with no binding Indian legal force
- Raises issues about AI gatekeeping, transparency, and competitive neutrality
What happened
On May 20, 2026, the Calcutta High Court ruled against IndiaMART InterMesh Ltd’s interim relief application seeking to direct OpenAI to display its marketplace links on ChatGPT responses. The court overturned a prior December 2025 ruling that had found a prima facie case of selective discrimination against IndiaMART, rejecting the claim after hearing OpenAI’s defense.
OpenAI argued that IndiaMART had no legal entitlement to be featured, citing the 2024 USTR Notorious Markets List as a basis for exclusion. Although this list is an American trade watchlist flagging alleged IP violators, it carries no legal authority in India and does not provide notice or response opportunities to entities named.
Why it matters
With over 100 million weekly ChatGPT users in India, this judgment is the first of its kind on the issue of AI platforms’ legal obligations to include businesses in their outputs. AI assistants are becoming primary gateways for consumers to discover products and services, making exclusion decisions consequential for market access and competition.
Experts warn this case underscores significant concerns around platform neutrality, transparency, and procedural fairness. The court’s ruling does not address whether AI platforms effectively act as gatekeepers controlling market visibility, raising digital sovereignty issues if global AI companies apply foreign regulatory classifications that impact Indian businesses.
What to watch next
Future scrutiny will focus on whether Indian law and regulators will develop frameworks addressing AI platforms’ gatekeeper roles, including disclosure requirements and appeal mechanisms for excluded businesses. Balancing consumer protection, fair competition, and innovation will be critical as AI systems shape information availability.
Additionally, transparency around the criteria AI assistants use to filter and rank information remains a pressing concern. Policymakers and businesses alike will watch closely if and how Indian courts and regulators respond to address asymmetric knowledge and potential unfair trade practices resulting from implicit content exclusion by AI.