The Delhi High Court on Nov 14th addressed a defamation suit involving health influencer Revant Himatsingka, who criticized Mondelez India’s Bournvita product. Despite a court order preventing disparaging comments, Himatsingka posted critical content. The Judge emphasized the broader issue of unhealthy products and considered free speech in digital media. The case highlights tensions between influencers and corporations regarding consumer health awareness.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday (Nov 14th) heard a case involving health influencer Revant Himatsingka, known as FoodPharmer, who has been in a legal dispute with Mondelez India over alleged disparaging remarks about their product Bournvita. The matter arose after Mondelez, the company behind Bournvita, alleged that Himatsingka had violated a court order that restrained him from making negative statements about the product.
In response, Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing Himatsingka, informed Justice Amit Bansal that Himatsingka would formally request Ranveer Allahbadia—who hosts the popular YouTube podcast BeerBiceps—to remove any Bournvita-related comments from an interview he gave on the channel. Justice Bansal agreed, noting,
“Why make it adversarial? Let him [FoodPharmer] do it … the matter is coming in ten days.”
During the proceedings, Justice Bansal also remarked on the broader issue of unhealthy products in the market, mentioning that many items contain high sugar content or other unhealthy ingredients.
“In a larger context, so many of the products that are selling in the market are unhealthy. It could be because of high sugar content. I don’t want to take names,”
the judge observed. This comment underscores the ongoing debate about product transparency and health-conscious consumer choices.
Revant Himatsingka, known for addressing nutritional content in widely consumed products, had specifically criticized the sugar content in Bournvita. His campaign prompted Mondelez to reduce the sugar levels in Bournvita. Senior Advocate Rao noted that Himatsingka’s critiques weren’t limited to Mondelez but targeted all unhealthy products.
In response, Mondelez filed a defamation suit claiming that Himatsingka had posted over 150 videos and posts disparaging Bournvita and another product, Tang. Mondelez’s complaint also included a recent interview on BeerBiceps, which they claimed Himatsingka violated an interim injunction issued on October 15 that restrained him from posting content critical of Bournvita.
On October 15, the Court ruled in favor of Mondelez, observing that the company had a prima facie case of defamation and barred Himatsingka from sharing disparaging content. Despite the injunction, Mondelez alleged that Himatsingka made defamatory comments on the BeerBiceps podcast published on November 7, and subsequently reposted this interview on his FoodPharmer social media handle.
Senior Advocate Rao admitted that Himatsingka had reposted the BeerBiceps interview but clarified that the video had been removed from FoodPharmer’s social media in compliance with the Court’s order. However, since the podcast was still live on BeerBiceps, Rao volunteered to request Allahbadia to remove any references to Bournvita from the video.
Mondelez’s counsel, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, also expressed an interest in reaching out to BeerBiceps directly. However, the Court declined to pass any order on Mondelez’s request, as it had already acknowledged Himatsingka’s efforts to address the matter.
Justice Bansal indicated that while the Court has no intention of silencing Himatsingka, it may need to examine the boundaries of free speech within this context. To explore this, Justice Bansal mentioned that he may review relevant foreign case laws. The matter is now set for hearing on November 27, leaving space for further developments regarding free speech and product criticism in digital media.
The case highlights the growing tension between influencers and corporations in the era of social media, raising questions about accountability, transparency, and freedom of expression as consumers become more health-conscious and vocal online. The Court’s upcoming ruling could set a precedent for similar cases, particularly where health claims and consumer rights intersect with corporate interests.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE