Delhi HC rules influencers can criticise brands if backed by facts

The Delhi High Court has held that social media influencers are entitled to criticise brands, provided their commentary is backed by scientific evidence. The judgment was delivered in a case between San Nutrition Private Limited and influencer Arpit Mangal, as reported by Bar and Bench.

Justice Amit Bansal refused to grant San Nutrition's plea for an interim injunction to restrain Mangal and three other influencers from publishing critical reviews of its whey protein products. The Court emphasised that restricting speech before a full trial would be unreasonable.

"It would be unreasonable to place restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression before the full trial takes place," Justice Bansal stated. He further added, "Reasonable criticism, comment and parody is largely protected within the right to free speech under the Constitution."

San Nutrition had alleged that the influencers’ videos were defamatory and caused economic harm. However, the Court ruled that granting an interim injunction would amount to placing unjustifiable fetters on free speech and depriving the public of important health-related information.

The Court acknowledged the dual role played by influencers in promoting products and acting as watchdogs for consumer welfare. In its findings, it noted that the influencers’ videos were aimed at educating consumers based on sufficient factual basis.

"The essence of (the influencer's) videos is only to educate the consumers. The comments made by the defendant, in my prima facie view, form an honest opinion based on sufficient factual basis," Justice Bansal said.

San Nutrition had objected to the use of terms like "Doctor Has No Choice" and "ghatiya" (inferior) in the influencers’ videos. Rejecting these claims, Justice Bansal held that strong language and satire were permissible.

"The word ‘ghatiya’ would mean nothing more than ‘sub-standard’. Exaggeration or hyperbole does not amount to defamation per se," the Court stated. It also cited previous rulings, saying, "This Court in Greenpeace (supra) has also held that a satirical reference is permissible under the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under the Constitution."

Addressing San Nutrition’s claim of trademark infringement, the Court clarified that the mere use of a brand's name for review purposes does not constitute infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

"The defendants have not used the plaintiff’s marks in the course of trade but only to review the plaintiff’s goods," Justice Bansal ruled.

Justice Bansal noted that protecting free speech outweighed the brand’s request for interim relief. "Granting an interim injunction would result in putting fetters on their right to freedom of speech and would deprive the public at large to receive information on matters of health," he said.

Guidelines Established for Influencer Reviews

The judgment lays down key principles for influencer marketing:

• Influencers can name brands and display products while reviewing without infringing trademarks.
  
  
• Criticism supported by verifiable lab results is a valid defence against defamation claims.
  
  
• Satirical or exaggerated commentary is protected under the right to free expression.
  
  

This case forms part of a growing number of disputes where brands seek court orders to restrict influencer commentary. Other examples include Mondelez India’s defamation suit against influencer Revant Himatsingka (FoodPharmer) over his comments on Bournvita, and an injunction against Scholars Den from calling Physics Wallah "sasta wallah" in advertisements. Reckitt, owner of Dettol, has also initiated legal action against Raj Shamami over product-related criticisms.