The Delhi High Court held that social media influencers can criticise consumer brands if their opinions are based on scientific evidence. The Court refused San Nutrition’s request to block negative reviews of its whey protein products.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has recently made an important ruling about what social media influencers can say about consumer brands. In a case between San Nutrition Private Limited and influencer Arpit Mangal, the Court said that influencers are allowed to make statements against brands on social media, but these statements must be supported by proper scientific evidence.
Justice Amit Bansal refused San Nutrition’s request for an interim order that would have stopped four influencers from posting negative reviews about its whey protein products.
The Court clearly said,
“It would be unreasonable to place restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression before the full trial takes place. Reasonable criticism, comment and parody is largely protected within the right to free speech under the Constitution …The use of hyperbole and exaggerated forms of speech or parody would not entitle the plaintiff to grant of interim injunction … Granting an interim injunction would result in putting fetters on their right to freedom of speech and expression and would also deprive the public at large of information on matters of health.”
San Nutrition, a company that sells nutrition supplements, filed a case asking the Court to stop Arpit Mangal from making bad comments about its products. The Delhi High Court had to think about whether such comments by influencers were defamation, disparagement, or trademark infringement, and how the right to free speech applied in such cases.
In an earlier order passed on December 2, 2024, Justice Bansal had framed the main legal question of the case, which was to decide the limits of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, along with the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), especially when influencers made remarks about third-party goods and services.
Because the issue involved important constitutional questions, the Court asked Advocates Aditya Gupta and Varun Pathak, representing Google and Meta respectively, to act as amici curiae and submit their views. The Court wanted to understand how to balance three important rights — a brand’s reputational and economic interests, an individual’s freedom of speech, and the public’s right to receive information.
The amici explained that cases like this generally involve three causes of action: defamation, which is about a brand’s reputation; disparagement, which is about economic harm; and trademark infringement, which deals with legal rights.
They said that in defamation cases, the defense of truth and fair comment can be used, but if malice is proven, then fair comment may not protect the influencer. For disparagement, it is the company’s job to prove that false and malicious comments hurt their business.
ALSO READ: [Patanjali Fake Ads Case] Celebrities, Influencers Equally Liable for Misleading Ads: SC
Justice Bansal observed that influencer marketing not only helps brands promote products but also plays an important role in protecting consumer interests. He said that while businesses deserve to protect their reputation, influencers must also have the right to freely express their opinions, especially when they have proof to support their claims.
The Court said,
“The essence of [the influencer’s] videos is only to educate the consumers… The comments made by the defendant, in my prima facie view, forms an honest opinion based on sufficient factual basis.”
It came out during the case that three independent laboratories, accredited by NABL — including Eurofins and Micro Tech Laboratory — tested San Nutrition’s products and found that the protein content was lower than what the company had claimed. San Nutrition could not show any proof to counter these test reports.
One of the influencers had used strong language, calling the brand “Doctor Has No Choice” and using the word “ghatiya” (meaning inferior). San Nutrition objected to this, but the Court did not agree with their complaint.
The Court said,
“The word ‘ghatiya’ would mean nothing more than ‘sub-standard’. Exaggeration or hyperbole does not amount to defamation per se.”
The Court also said that satire, jokes, and exaggerated language are protected ways of expressing views under free speech.
It pointed out,
“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.”
Talking about the trademark infringement claims, the Court made it very clear that simply mentioning a brand name for reviewing a product does not break the law under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Court said,
“The defendants have not used the plaintiff’s marks in the course of trade but only to review the plaintiff’s goods.”
Justice Bansal finally decided that the balance of convenience in this case favoured protecting free speech rather than protecting the business reputation.
He stated,
“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.”
This judgment also lays down some clear guidelines for social media influencers. According to this decision, influencers are allowed to use brand names and show products while reviewing them without violating trademark laws.
If their criticism is based on real, verifiable test results, they have a strong defense against defamation charges. The use of satire and exaggerated words while criticizing is also legally protected under the right to freedom of expression.
The Court dismissed San Nutrition’s plea for an interim injunction, meaning that the influencers are free to keep posting their honest reviews for now.
This case shows a rising trend where big brands are trying to take legal action against influencers who post negative remarks. Recently, Mondelez India had also filed a defamation suit against influencer Revant Himatsingka, known as FoodPharmer, for criticizing Bournvita.
In another case, Scholars Den was stopped from calling EdTech company Physics Wallah “sasta wallah” in their ads. Similarly, Reckitt, the owner of Dettol, also took some influencers to court for posting negative comments about its antiseptic liquid.
In this San Nutrition case, the company was represented by Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak and Advocates Kangan Roda, Abhishek R, Tanishq Sharma, and Chirantan Priyadarshan. The lead defendant, Arpit Mangal, was represented by Advocates Ramchandra Madan and Tushar Nigam.
READ JUDGEMENT:
Click Here to Read More Reports on Influencer Case
