New Delhi: OpenAI is bringing Notch co-founders Vinay Jain and Aman Jain into its advertising team, adding executives with experience in building automated ad products at a time when ChatGPT is expanding its advertising business across global markets, including India.

Advertisment

Add Best Media Info As A Trusted Source

Both founders confirmed the move in separate LinkedIn posts. Vinay Jain, Co-founder and CEO of Notch, said he and Aman had started the company two years ago with the belief that AI agents could help businesses grow autonomously.

“We built agentic experiences for advertising, worked with thousands of small businesses, and learned what it takes to turn fast-moving technology into something people use daily to run their ad budgets via Notch agents,” Vinay wrote.

Aman Jain, Co-founder and CTO, said the team had developed Max, an autonomous AI marketer designed to handle advertising from market research and creative production to campaign execution and performance optimisation.

“We built Max, an autonomous AI marketer that handled advertising end to end, from market research and ad creation to running campaigns and learning from results. Businesses and agencies trusted it with their advertising budgets,” Aman wrote.

The announcement comes less than a month after Notch publicly introduced Max on September 23, positioning it as an autonomous performance marketing agent for ecommerce and retail businesses.

According to Notch's launch announcement, the product could generate advertising creatives, launch campaigns on Meta and TikTok, monitor performance and recommend budget changes. The company said Max had helped generate more than 85,000 live advertisements for hundreds of businesses.

Notch also claimed that Max had reduced customer acquisition costs by 30% while increasing sales for ecommerce brand Scentless during a two-month experiment. The performance claim was based on the company's own reported results and has not been independently verified.

The founders bring advertising technology experience from large digital platforms. Vinay previously spent eight years at Meta, where, according to Notch, he worked on Lead Ads and the development of advertising products. Aman previously worked on Twitter's direct-response advertising systems, Instagram Live and the WhatsApp Business API.

OpenAI’s advertising business had crossed a $1 billion annualised revenue run rate.

In September, it introduced tools allowing advertisers to create, update and analyse campaigns using natural-language prompts, along with AI-generated creative suggestions and integrations with Shopify and HubSpot.

It also began testing Sponsored Agents, which allow users to initiate conversations with business-sponsored AI agents after interacting with an advertisement.

The Notch founders have worked on another part of this process: using AI to perform the tasks that advertisers and agencies would otherwise handle manually.

Their experience is particularly relevant to small and medium-sized businesses that may lack dedicated media buying teams, creative resources or the budgets required to employ specialist agencies.

For OpenAI, reducing the work involved in launching and managing campaigns could help attract advertisers that have previously depended on self-service platforms such as Meta and Google.

It could also allow a smaller business to manage multiple parts of its advertising operation through an AI agent, rather than separately commissioning creatives, configuring campaigns, monitoring results and making routine adjustments.

New Delhi: Blink Digital told the Bombay High Court on Wednesday that its business had come to a standstill after Meta disabled its advertising accounts.

Meta, however, blamed the agency for its predicament, saying it had brought the situation upon itself.

“And today we have no business, zero,” Blink's counsel submitted towards the end of the hearing.

Meta's counsel responded, “That's something of their own making. They should not blame Meta for doing what Meta has done.”

The exchange took place as the court heard Meta's application challenging its jurisdiction to hear Blink's Rs 1,158-crore lawsuit. 

Meta argued that the agency had agreed to settle disputes in California under its advertising contracts, while Blink maintained that the case should be heard in India.

Justice Sandeep V Marne heard arguments from Advocate Kunal Dwarkadas of Tuli & Co, representing Blink Digital, and Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, appearing for Meta.

Blink Digital filed the commercial suit against Facebook India Online Services and Meta Platforms Inc. after four of its Business Manager accounts and corporate pages were disabled.

Meta told the court during an earlier hearing that it terminated the four accounts on August 3 and communicated the reasons on August 4, 2026.

The company alleged that Blink had breached its advertising policies by offering advertisers spending arrangements that bypassed Meta's normal account limits. Meta also alleged that the agency had allowed advertisements promoting scams and sexual services.

Blink has challenged the action as arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate, seeking restoration of its accounts and pages, recognition as a managed agency partner and Rs 1,158 crore in damages and compensation.

The court has not ruled on Meta's allegations or the damages claim.

During Wednesday's hearing, Meta argued that Blink had failed to establish any legal exception allowing an Indian court to disregard the exclusive jurisdiction clause in its advertising contracts.

“The plaintiff has failed to plead in the plaint the existence of any of the judicial exceptions carved out to the rule that Indian Courts will enforce the forum of choice,” Meta's counsel submitted.

Meta maintained that Facebook India, which Blink had named as a defendant, merely provided sales and advertising support, while the accounts were operated by the overseas Meta entity.

Blink disputed this, producing India-specific advertising terms, invoices and correspondence to establish Facebook India's involvement.

“Who raised the invoice on me, pursuant to this contract? Facebook India. Who did I pay? Facebook India,” Blink's counsel submitted.

“And this is an INR invoice. They are not charging me in dollars,” he added.

Blink also cited 72 items of correspondence with individuals it identified as Facebook India employees and argued that the Indian entity had not independently challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction.

Blink argued that Meta had relied on India's Information Technology Rules, 2021, to justify disabling its accounts but was refusing to have the resulting dispute heard in India.

Citing Rule 4(8), Blink's counsel claimed that the agency had been denied procedural safeguards, including prior notice and an opportunity to challenge the action.

“Our case simply put, right or wrong, is that you completely failed to comply with Rule 4, sub-rule 8,” counsel submitted.

He added that “there is no notice, there is no reason and there has been no hearing either pre or post facto”.

Blink also questioned Meta's standard advertising contracts, arguing that businesses had no meaningful opportunity to negotiate their terms.

“I have to click a button, as does every other commercial user in India or in the world. It was not negotiated,” counsel said.

The agency described the California jurisdiction clause as a “take it or leave it” condition, arguing that advertisers dependent on Facebook and Instagram had little choice but to accept Meta's terms.

“Refusing those terms is not a real option for the plaintiff. The defendants control an outsized share of the online advertising market,” Blink's counsel submitted.

Meta maintained that the contractual jurisdiction clause was enforceable and that Blink had not established grounds for disregarding it.

Towards the end of the hearing, Blink warned that the outcome could affect other Indian advertisers using Meta's platforms.

“The consequences according to us are far-reaching. It will affect every single commercial user in this state, of course, but across India,” counsel submitted.

The court scheduled further arguments for Friday, October 16, at 10.15 am. It has not yet ruled on jurisdiction or Blink's request for restoration of account access.