Criticism By Social Media Influencers On Products Based On Objective Material: Delhi High Court Dismisses San Nutrition’s Plea In Defamation Case
The Delhi High Court said that the Plaintiff has failed to show that the defences of ‘truth’ and ‘fair comment’ put up by the Defendants are palpably false and/or are bound to fail at the stage of trial.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Suit filed by San Nutrition Private Limited against some social media influencers in a defamation case.
The Court was adjudicating an Application filed by the aforesaid Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), seeking an interim injunction against the Defendants.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed, “… in the present case, the statements made by the defendants in the impugned videos are not unsubstantiated and are based on objective material. … The plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation v. Akshar Foods and Beverages27 in support of its submission that disparaging remarks about any brand/ product cannot be made without properly verifying the underlying facts. … The aforesaid judgment would also be of no assistance to the plaintiff herein as in the said case, the defendant was a competitor of the plaintiff.”
The Bench was of the view that the Plaintiff has failed to show that the defences of ‘truth’ and ‘fair comment’ put up by the Defendants are palpably false and/or are bound to fail at the stage of trial.
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff while Advocate Ramchandra Madan appeared on behalf of the Defendants. Aditya Gupta and Varun Pathak were appointed as the Amicus Curiae.
Brief Facts
A Suit was filed by the Plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants who were social media influences and who posted videos on YouTube and/or Instagram regarding the Plaintiff and one of its products, alleging infringement of trade marks, defamation, disparagement, and unfair trade practices. The Plaintiff was a company engaged in the business of sale and marketing of various nutraceutical and healthcare supplement products including isolate whey protein, vitamins, protein powder, mass gainers, branched chain amino acids (BCAAs), essential amino acids (EAAs), fat burners, supplements, merchandise, etc.
The Defendants were the social media influencers namely Arpit Mangal, Kabir Grover, Manish Keshwani, and Avijit Roy. It was alleged that the Defendants uploaded videos which gained negative popularity for the Plaintiff’s marks and product based on baseless and incorrect information. The Plaintiff in 2024, lodged Complaints with Google for removal of the videos hosted on its platform YouTube. However, Google refused to remove the impugned videos stating that it is not in a position to adjudicate the veracity of the posts and it does not remove videos based on allegations of defamation. Hence, the Plaintiff sought reliefs before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, remarked, “Influencer marketing has emerged as a pivotal force in India’s digital landscape reshaping how consumers connect with brands across sectors, from fashion and beauty to food, technology and finance. … This surge in the influencer marketing industry is largely attributable to increased internet penetration, proliferation of affordable smartphones and rise of regional content creators who cater to diverse audiences across the country. Platforms like Instagram and YouTube, which serve as primary channels for influencers to share content and collaborate with brands, have become central to this phenomenon.”
The Court said that the impact of social media influencers extends beyond mere advertising and apart from being the trendsetters introducing new products and brands to their target audiences, social media influencers have also taken up the role of watchdogs amplifying the concerns raised by the consumers.
“Inasmuch as it comes off as an opportunity for consumers to ensure their right to know, democratization of internet has also increased the potential for harm caused to individuals and businesses by spread of misinformation. Since influencers shape consumer behaviour, their critique significantly impacts a brand’s reputation, which is why there is also an undeniable tension between business entities and the influencer community”, it further noted.
The Court emphasised that there is a need to balance the right of such influencers to their freedom of speech and expression and the right of individuals and business entities to their reputation.
The Court reiterated the following principles –
(i) It would be unreasonable to place restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression before the full trial takes place;
(ii) Reasonable criticism, comment and parody is largely protected within the right to free speech under the Constitution;
(iii) Even if the Plaintiff has received the requisite approvals, it would not mean that the concerns raised by the defendants are not genuine or backed by materials;
(iv) At an interim stage, it cannot be stated that the actions of the Defendants are mala fide;
(v) Just because internet publication has wider viewership or a degree of permanence, it would not mean that a different standard for grant of injunction, in variance with the Bonnard principle, would have to be followed. Adopting a different approach would result in disturbing the balance between free speech and the interest of the plaintiff.;
(vi) The use of hyperbole and exaggerated forms of speech or parody would not entitle the plaintiff to grant of interim injunction.
“In my considered view, there is nothing wrong in the defendants no.2 and 3 relying upon the tests conducted by the defendant no.1. Further, the defendant no.2 has clearly stated in his video that he is only giving information with regard to the plaintiff’s product and asks the consumers to make their own choice. It is also stated that he expects the plaintiff to work on the plaintiff’s product to improve its quality. Therefore, on a prima facie view, the defendants no.2 and 3 are engaging in constructive criticism of the plaintiff’s product”, also observed the Court.
Conclusion
The Court said that the test results of the DIY test kit have to be accepted at a prima facie stage, especially in light of the fact that the results of the test conducted by the Defendant are more or less in line with the results obtained from NABL accredited laboratories.
“As regard the plaintiff’s contention that the aforesaid video was a paid advertising and promotional video published by the defendant no.4 for a competing brand ‘MuscleBlaze’, there is nothing to back this allegation. The defendant no.4’s use of name/ mark of the competing brand ‘MuscleBlaze’ in the title/ description/ content of aforesaid video is only to refer to the Kit used by him to conduct the aforesaid test”, it added.
The Court also noted that the Defendants have not used the Plaintiff’s marks, including by way of hashtags in the description of the impugned videos, in the course of trade.
“The plaintiff’s marks have been used by the defendants not in respect of their goods/ services, but only to review the plaintiff’s own goods. … On a prima facie view, the plaintiff has also failed to make out a case for disparagement against the defendants as it cannot be said that the contents of the impugned videos are false or misleading or have been made in a malicious manner with an objective to cause damage or injury to the plaintiff”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application.
Cause Title- San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2973)
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, Advocates Kangan Roda, Tanishq Sharma, R. Abhishek, Sarthak Sharma, and Priyadarshan.
Defendants: Advocates Ramchandra Madan, Tushar Nigam, Aishwarya Kane, Sauhard Alung, Shuvam Bhattacharya, Yash Karunakaran, Vishwajeet Deshmukh, A. Mehra, Amicus Curiae Aditya Gupta, and Varun Pathak.
