Delhi High Court Upholds Influencers’ Freedom of Speech Over Brand Complaints
In a major win for digital creators, the Delhi High Court ruled on Monday that social media influencers are allowed to publish critical reviews against brands, provided their criticism is based on verifiable scientific evidence.
Justice Amit Bansal dismissed a plea by San Nutrition Private Limited seeking an injunction to restrain four influencers — including Arpit Mangal — from posting negative reviews about its whey protein products.
The Court emphasized that placing prior restraints on free speech before a full trial would be unreasonable.
“Reasonable criticism, comment, and parody are largely protected within the right to free speech under the Constitution,” Justice Bansal observed. “The use of hyperbole and exaggerated language does not entitle a plaintiff to an interim injunction.”
This ruling marks a significant development for India’s influencer economy, where marketing, consumer rights, and free speech increasingly collide.
Freedom of Expression vs Brand Reputation: The Case Details
San Nutrition alleged that Arpit Mangal’s comments amounted to defamation, disparagement, and trademark infringement, claiming harm to its brand reputation and business interests.
Recognizing the larger constitutional implications, the Court invited Advocates Aditya Gupta and Varun Pathak (representing Google and Meta respectively) to assist as amici curiae. They helped the Court balance three competing interests:
- Protection of brand reputation
- Safeguarding individual free speech
- Ensuring the public’s right to truthful information
The amici curiae explained that defenses like truth and fair comment are available when the criticism is backed by factual evidence.
Fact-Based Reviews Protected Under Free Speech
Testing by three independent, NABL-accredited laboratories — including Eurofins and Micro Tech Laboratory — revealed that San Nutrition’s products had lower protein levels than advertised.
San Nutrition failed to counter this evidence. As a result, the Court found that the influencers’ reviews were honest opinions based on a sufficient factual foundation.
“The influencers’ videos aim to educate consumers,” the judgment states. “Granting an injunction would stifle vital public discourse, especially regarding health and well-being.”
Satire, Hyperbole, and Use of Trademarks: All Within Legal Rights
The Court also ruled that the use of satire, hyperbolic language, and even strong words like “ghatiya” (meaning “inferior”) falls under protected free speech.
Justice Bansal clarified that:
- Satire and exaggeration do not automatically amount to defamation.
- Use of a brand name for commentary purposes does not constitute trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, when not used “in the course of trade.”
Key Guidelines for Influencer Reviews from the Delhi High Court
The judgment lays down important principles for influencer content:
- Influencers may use brand names and showcase products in critical reviews without infringing trademarks.
- Reviews based on verifiable, factual evidence like lab tests have a strong defense against defamation suits.
- Satire, hyperbole, and strongly worded commentary are permissible under the right to free speech.
The Court firmly stated that granting an injunction would unjustifiably curtail freedom of expression, especially when public health information is at stake.
Broader Trend: Rise of Brand-Influencer Legal Battles
This judgment comes amid a growing wave of brands suing influencers over negative commentary.
Recent cases include:
- Mondelez India vs Revant Himatsingka (FoodPharmer) regarding Bournvita
- Physics Wallah and Reckitt over brand criticisms
However, the Delhi High Court has now reaffirmed that fact-based, evidence-backed reviews — even if critical or exaggerated — are a protected form of speech in India’s evolving digital landscape.
[Read Judgment]
San nutition judgment
