Delhi HC supports influencers’ right to criticise brands with evidence

The Delhi High Court has ruled that social media influencers are permitted to criticise consumer brands if their comments are based on verifiable scientific evidence, stating such criticism does not amount to defamation.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Amit Bansal in response to an interim plea filed by Sans Nutrition Private Limited. The company, which markets nutraceutical and healthcare supplements, brought a defamation suit against four influencers, Arpit Mangal, Kabir Grover, Manish Keshwani and Avijit Roy, for publishing online reviews of its whey protein products.

The court held that influencers may display brand names, use satire and hyperbole, and critique products provided their reviews are substantiated with evidence, including lab tests. It acknowledged the evolving role of influencers as both promoters and watchdogs, with Justice Bansal noting that curbing fact-based commentary would restrict free speech and deny consumers critical information related to health and safety.

The judgment stated that Mangal successfully established a defence of truth in his video critique, which was supported by laboratory results. The court dismissed Sans Nutrition’s argument that it was not accountable for inaccurate nutritional labelling because the products were manufactured by a third party, affirming that the responsibility ultimately lies with the company selling the product.

Further, the judge rejected the claim that Mangal’s intent was malicious, asserting that the remarks were in public interest. The court also clarified that calling the product “ghatiya” — meaning inferior, was within the bounds of fair comment given the test results.

Regarding the other three influencers, the court declined to issue any restraint, ruling that Sans Nutrition failed to prove their comments were patently false. The decision sets a precedent for balancing brand reputation with the rights of digital commentators.

News