Malicious Product Reviews Without Technical Basis Constitute Commercial Disparagement: Delhi High Court Restrains YouTubers From Targeting AI+ Smartphones
The Bench noted that such comparative reviews can unfairly influence public perception and result in significant financial losses.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that malicious product reviews, characterised by unverified technical claims and targeted personal disparagement, do not qualify as fair criticism and warrant judicial intervention. Accordingly, it restrained the Youtubers from spreading or further publishing any information against the Indian consumer tech brand AI+ Smartphones, on YouTube or any other social media/digital platforms.
The Bench noted that such comparative reviews can unfairly influence public perception and result in significant financial losses. It was found that the defendants’ videos went beyond neutral commentary by suggesting that consumers should stay away from AI+ products, and by claiming that AI+ was a Fake Indian Brand in contrast to Lava, the Court identified a pattern of disparagement intended to tarnish the plaintiffs' commercial standing.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noting the excerpts, observed, “…when read together with the remaining portions clearly indicate that the statements tend to disparage the product of the plaintiffs’. As observed above, no data or any real technical examination or evaluation by any credible agency has been mentioned…The transcripts appear to suggest that the consumers ought not to invest their money into purchasing the products of the plaintiff, predicated on the analysis done by the defendant nos.2 and 3. This untested and unverified analysis has the potential of causing financial loss to the plaintiffs. The essential elements required for the Court to prima facie find disparagement appear to be fulfilled…”.
Senior Advocate Ashim Vachher appeared for the plaintiff while none appeared for the defendants.
The plaintiffs, NxtQuantum Shift Technologies (trading as AI+ Smartphones) and its CEO Madhav Sheth, filed a commercial suit against several YouTubers and John Doe defendants.
They alleged that videos titled "This Indian Phone Is A Marketing Disaster!" and "FAKE Indian Company Needs to STOP" contained defamatory and commercially disparaging statements regarding their data privacy standards and brand origin. The plaintiffs asserted that their products are entirely Indian-owned and manufactured, running on a sovereign OS, contrary to the defendants' claims of "hidden Chinese apps" and copied designs.
Upon filing the suit, the plaintiffs sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to halt the viral spread of the impugned content. The Court granted an exemption from Pre-Institution Mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, noting the urgency of the interim relief. After hearing the plaintiffs' senior counsel and examining the records, the Court proceeded to evaluate whether the content met the prima facie threshold for disparagement.
The Court applied the three-pronged test for disparagement: whether the statement is misleading, made maliciously, and results in special damage. While the defendants’ videos claimed to be based on technical parameters, the Court observed that the transcripts failed to show any actual comparative testing or data to support the conclusions.
Furthermore, the Bench noted that the videos appeared to unfairly target the founder's professional history to bring disrepute to the product. The Court concluded that these "malicious" publications were likely to discourage potential buyers and cause significant financial loss to the plaintiffs.
Accordingly, summons was issued to the defendants, who are required to file their written statements within 30 days of receipt. The Court also mandated compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC within ten days.
Cause Title: NxtQuantum Shift Technologies India Private Limited & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors. (CS(COMM) 429/2026)
Appearances:
Plaintiffs: Ashim Vachher, Senior Advocate, Piyush Paswan, Sonali Karwasrajoon, Kunal Lakra, and Saiba M Rajpal, Advocates.
Defendants: None.