The Delhi High Court has ruled that social media influencers are permitted to make statements against consumer brands on social media platforms, as long as such claims are supported by scientific evidence.
As per media reports, the judgment came in the context of a legal dispute between San Nutrition and influencer Arpit Mangal.
Justice Amit Bansal rejected San Nutrition’s plea for interim order seeking to restrain four influencers from posting negative reviews of its whey protein products.
“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,” the Court ruled, as per the reports.
San Nutrition, a company that sells nutritional supplements, has filed a lawsuit seeking to restrain social media influencer Arpit Mangal from making allegedly disparaging statements about its products.
The Delhi High Court was tasked with determining whether critical commentary by influencers constitutes defamation, disparagement, or trademark infringement, and to what extent the right to free speech applies in such cases.
In an order dated December 2, 2024, Justice Amit Bansal framed the central legal issue in the case: determining the extent of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, in conjunction with the reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2), specifically in the context of remarks made by influencers concerning third-party goods and services.
Recognising the constitutional significance of the matter, the Court invited Advocates Aditya Gupta and Varun Pathak, Counsel for Google and Meta, respectively, to file submissions in the capacity of amici curiae.
The Court called for submissions on how to strike a balance between three competing rights: a brand’s reputational and economic interests, an individual’s freedom of speech, and the public’s right to receive information.
The amici contended that cases of this nature generally involve three distinct causes of action: (a) defamation, which pertains to reputational interests; (b) disparagement, which relates to economic interests; and (c) trademark infringement, which involves statutory rights. They submitted that in defamation claims, defenses such as truth and fair comment may be invoked; however, the presence of malice can defeat a defense of fair comment. In contrast, in cases of disparagement, the burden rests on the plaintiff to establish that the statements in question were both false and malicious, and that they resulted in economic harm.
An influencer had referred to the brand as “Doctor Has No Choice” and labeled it “ghatiya” (inferior). Dismissing San Nutrition’s objection to these comments, the Court ruled: ““The word ‘ghatiya’ would mean nothing more than ‘sub-standard’. Exaggeration or hyperbole does not amount to defamation per se.”
The Court also ruled that satirical references in the videos are protected under the right to freedom of expression.
“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,” the judgment said.
The judgment outlined key guidelines for social media influencers:
- Influencers are permitted to use brand names and showcase products during reviews without violating trademark rights.
- Criticism grounded in verifiable test results serves as a robust defense against defamation claims.
- Satirical expressions and exaggerated language are protected as legitimate forms of expression.
