Delhi HC affirms influencers’ right to criticize brands based on verified facts

Delhi HC Affirms Influencers’ Right To Criticize Brands Based On Verified Facts

by Anushree Rauta (Equity Partner, Head of Media and Entertainment Practice) and Shrija Verma (Associate)

INTRODUCTION

The growing influence of digital content creators has disrupted traditional marketing models in India. Social media influencers today command enormous reach and credibility among consumers, directly impacting brand perception and purchasing decisions.

Recognizing the evolving tension between brand protection and freedom of expression, the Delhi High Court in San Nutrition Pvt Ltd v. Arpit Mangal & Ors¹ has provided crucial judicial guidance.

This judgment firmly establishes that influencers can voice criticism against brands, provided such criticism is factual, responsibly communicated, and not malicious.

The ruling balances the right to freedom of speech enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including the protection of reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The plaintiff, San Nutrition Pvt Ltd, a major player in the nutraceutical industry marketing products under the brand “Doctor’s Choice,” approached the Delhi High Court alleging:

Trademark infringement by the unauthorized use of their brand name and packaging images.
Defamation and disparagement of their products through YouTube and Instagram videos.
Unfair trade practices in violation of advertising standards.

The defendants, including Arpit Mangal and other fitness influencers, had posted multiple videos highlighting alleged discrepancies between the nutritional information declared by San Nutrition and lab test results they independently commissioned.

San Nutrition claimed that the videos led to a sharp decline in sales, tarnished their goodwill, and propagated misinformation. The influencers, in contrast, argued that their reviews were based on credible lab tests from NABL-accredited laboratories and were intended to protect consumer interest — not to malign or disparage.

PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS

1. San Nutrition contended that the influencers — rather than conducting objective product reviews — had targeted the company and its product ‘Doctor’s Choice ISO PRO’ through a series of sensational and one-sided videos. According to the plaintiff, these videos:

Relied on laboratory reports allegedly obtained without following scientifically verifiable methods or FSSAI-approved protocols. Featured commentary that was alarmist and inflammatory, including terms such as “scam, ” “ghatiya product, ” and comparisons to “worst brands”.
Included sweeping conclusions about product safety and composition based on sample testing from a single unit of protein powder purchased online.

San Nutrition argued that at least two of the defendants (Defendants No. 2 and 3) had not conducted any testing at all and had instead relied solely on content created by Defendant No. 1 (Arpit Mangal). This, they alleged, showed a clear lack of independent verification. Further, the plaintiff alleged that the timing and language of the videos suggested a coordinated effort to undermine the brand, especially since the videos were released in close succession and referenced each other.

2. The plaintiff alleged that the videos prominently displayed the packaging, product name, registered trademarks, and distinctive trade dress associated with “Doctor’s Choice” products— without consent, such as use of full product images and packaging in video thumbnails, including the label with the “DC Doctor’s Choice” trademark; use of hashtags such as #DoctorsChoice and #IsoPro in video metadata to increase visibility and SEO rankings and mentions of the brand in spoken and written commentary within the video, without any indication that it was a permitted or nominative reference. San Nutrition asserted that this visual and verbal usage of their marks created confusion and implied an affiliation or official endorsement, especially for casual viewers. The plaintiff argued that such usage was not protected under “fair use” or commentary exceptions because the intent was not to inform but to ridicule and commercially exploit the brand name for engagement.

3. One of the plaintiff’s key allegations was that the videos were not merely objective reviews but were strategically designed to promote rival products. According to San Nutrition:

Defendants No. 1 and 4 allegedly had commercial affiliations with competing brands, including “MuscleBlaze”.
Defendant No. 4 conducted “lab testing” using a DIY test kit (MB Procheck Kit) manufactured by MuscleBlaze — a direct competitor — and featured the brand name in the video title.
Certain videos and pinned comments on YouTube included discount codes and affiliate promotions linked to other products, allegedly undermining the plaintiff while driving traffic and revenue to rivals.

The plaintiff claimed that failure to disclose these affiliations violated ethical standards and the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) Guidelines for influencer advertising. This, they argued, amounted to unfair trade practices under consumer protection laws and made the entire content suspect. San Nutrition emphasized that influencers have a duty of care, especially when publicly criticizing health-related products, and that hidden commercial incentives invalidated the supposed neutrality of the critiques.

In support of their claims, San Nutrition relied heavily on the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali². In that case, the Court granted an injunction against a YouTuber who had posted a product review that misrepresented factual information about a hair oil brand (Parachute), concluding that:

Influencer content that appears commercially motivated or makes unverified claims can amount to product disparagement.
Content that is presented in a manner designed to generate sensationalism, without sufficiently balancing facts, is not protected as fair comment.

San Nutrition argued that the present case was on stronger footing than Marico, as the alleged conduct here involved multiple influencers, possible coordination, and promotion of competing products. They urged the Delhi High Court to follow the same reasoning and hold that freedom of expression cannot be a shield for campaigns that damage brand reputation through false or misleading representations.

DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS

1. The defendants, particularly Defendant No. 1 (Arpit Mangal), submitted that the critical content in their videos was grounded in scientific findings derived from testing conducted by a NABL-accredited laboratory. They argued that:

The lab reports provided quantitative and qualitative analysis of the “Doctor’s Choice ISO PRO” protein powder, including metrics like protein content per serving, amino spiking, and label claim accuracy.
The decision to send the samples for testing was made in good faith as part of a initiative to highlight discrepancies between marketing claims and actual content.
The lab engaged followed standard procedures, and the results were disclosed to viewers in the video itself.

The defendants contended that scientific validation forms the backbone of honest criticism, and therefore, the videos were not speculative or defamatory, but informative disclosures based on factual findings.

2. The defendants emphasized that each of the impugned videos included clear disclaimers and stressed that the videos were opinions and educational in nature, stating that:

The content represented personal opinion, not medical or professional dietary advice.
Viewers were encouraged to conduct their own due diligence or consult nutritionists.
The purpose of the video was educational, aimed at raising awareness about label accuracy and supplement quality in the unregulated Indian fitness market.

They further argued that such disclaimers serve to contextualize the content as a consumer opinion, not an authoritative scientific conclusion; and demonstrate intent to inform, not to malign, and thus negate allegations of malice or commercial conspiracy. By transparently labelling the videos as opinion pieces, the defendants claimed they had acted responsibly and within the bounds of ethical influencer conduct.

3. The defendants placed strong reliance on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, and submitted that:

Influencers today function akin to modern consumer journalists, especially in areas like food, supplements, and health — where public awareness is crucial.
They have a constitutional right to critique commercial products, particularly when public health or consumer deception may be at stake.
Consumers are entitled to information that helps them make informed decisions, and brands must withstand scrutiny, especially in an industry plagued by mislabelling, underdosing, and false advertising.

The defendants also argued that freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend, provided it is exercised responsibly, in public interest, and without malice. In this context, the influencers contended that their speech was not only constitutionally protected but also socially necessary.

4. To support their defence, the defendants cited the landmark decision in Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy ³, where the Court reiterated that truth is a complete defence to civil and criminal defamation, provided it is:

made in public interest;
based on factual substantiation; and
free of personal animosity or malicious intent.

The defendants submitted that their statements were based on verifiable lab reports, which they made public in the videos; the content was motivated by consumer protection, not personal vendetta; and if the test results revealed inconsistencies or mislabelling, then reporting them — even bluntly — should not be treated as defamatory. Hence, they argued that no actionable defamation arose since the videos were substantially true, and their publication served the public good.

5. A key aspect of the defence was the argument that the influencers harboured no malice against San Nutrition and acted solely in the interest of public awareness. They asserted that:

their critiques were not personal attacks but were part of a larger campaign to bring transparency to the fitness and supplement industry in India;
the same creators had reviewed other products positively and negatively, showing a pattern of fair and consistent evaluation; and
no direct competitive product was promoted by some defendants (e.g., Defendants 2 and 3), and any brand mentioned was for comparison, not advertisement.

They maintained that even if the plaintiff felt aggrieved, absence of malicious intent and presence of factual justification should preclude the grant of any injunction or damages.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

Justice Amit Bansal presiding this matter systematically dissected the issues:

1. Defamation and the Defence of Truth

Citing Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy⁴ and Pankaj Oswal v. Vikas Pahwa⁵, the Court affirmed that truth is a complete defence in defamation suits. The influencers submitted three independent lab reports — all indicating discrepancies in protein content claims made by San Nutrition. Importantly, San Nutrition did not produce any counter-test reports to rebut these findings. Thus, the influencers successfully raised a prima facie defence of truth, and the Court declined to issue an injunction.

2. Disparagement and Malice

The Court applied the test laid down in Dabur India Ltd. v. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt Ltd⁶. and held:

mere commercial impact or loss of sales does not by itself prove malicious disparagement; and
honest opinion, backed by factual data, does not amount to disparagement even if it causes economic harm.

Thus, no malicious intent could be imputed solely on the basis of unfavourable reviews.

3. Trademark Use

The Court acknowledged that influencers had used the “Doctor’s Choice” mark but held that such nominative fair use is permissible while reviewing or commenting on a product, provided it does not mislead consumers into believing that there is endorsement or affiliation. Citing Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International⁷, the Court stressed that use for critical commentary is allowed.

4. Influencer Conduct and ASCI Guidelines

Though ASCI guidelines were not legally binding, the Court remarked that disclosure of sponsorship is important. In the present case, the influencers’ videos did not promote competitor products in the reviewed videos — therefore, no breach was found.

BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT

This case is a significant milestone for both brands and influencers navigating India’s legal landscape.

FOR INFLUENCERS:

The case reinforces the constitutional safeguard under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, affirming that influencers enjoy the right to critique products and brands, so long as their claims are rooted in factual material. Mere commercial interest or brand prestige cannot override truthful, public-interest criticism, especially when the content is grounded in objective evidence, such as certified lab reports or regulatory benchmarks. The ruling sets a progressive precedent in allowing influencers to operate without fear of gag orders, provided they are factual and transparent.

The Court’s reasoning highlights that while opinions are protected, reckless or baseless statements are not. Influencers must take care to:

rely on NABL-accredited or scientifically competent sources;
avoid unverified speculation or sensationalism; and
present data in a manner that is balanced and fair.

This implies that influencer speech will be protected only when it reflects due diligence, which may include getting products tested or relying on peer-reviewed data or government advisories. A central allegation in the case was that some influencers were allegedly promoting competing brands without disclosing affiliations, in potential violation of the ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising. The case underscores that influencers

clearly disclose paid partnerships, affiliate links, or brand relationships; and
refrain from covertly advertising under the guise of objective reviews.

Failing to disclose such affiliations can taint credibility, expose influencers to liability, and result in regulatory penalties under Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020⁸.

FOR BRANDS:

The judgment affirms that trademark protection does not extend to suppressing consumer commentary. Merely displaying a product’s trademark while reviewing it — especially in a noncommercial, informative context — does not amount to infringement. Further, not all negative opinions are defamatory. Brands must show actual falsity, malice, or reckless disregard for truth to succeed in such suits.

This sets a boundary on strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP suits) that brands may file to stifle dissent. Only false, misleading, or maliciously motivated content may be actionable.

The Court made it clear that only content which is:

factually incorrect;
deliberately misleading; or
published with malicious intent to harm reputation;

may attract civil or criminal liability. Therefore, brands must carefully assess whether influencer content crosses this threshold before rushing to court. This serves as a warning against over-litigation and promotes the principle that brands must be open to legitimate scrutiny.

Consumer protection is a recognized societal interest — brands must proactively ensure label claims match actual product quality. The judgment echoes broader regulatory trends (e.g., FSSAI regulations, Consumer Protection Act, 2019) that prioritize consumer rights over corporate image. Brands are now expected to:

maintain transparency and accuracy in advertising;
ensure that product composition aligns with labelling claims; and
accept that consumers and influencers are watchdogs, not just passive recipients.

In essence, brands are accountable not just to regulators but to the public discourse, including social media and digital content creators.

FOR COURTS:

The judgment reaffirms Bonnard v. Perryman principle⁹ i.e. injunctions in defamation cases will be rare and will only be granted when a defence like truth is “bound to fail”.

By applying the Bonnard v. Perryman principle — long adopted in Indian jurisprudence — the Court reaffirmed that pre-publication or interim gag orders in defamation suits should be granted only in the clearest cases. Specifically:

If the defendant pleads truth, and the court cannot conclusively say that defence will fail, no interim injunction should be issued.
This upholds the principle that free speech is the default, and restraint is the exception.

This reinforces judicial caution in curbing speech at the interlocutory stage. Courts must carefully balance free speech and reputation, avoiding blanket gag orders at interim stages. In today’s influencer-driven media landscape, the Court recognized the influence of online platforms but also guarded against granting overbroad relief. The ruling cautions against:

Blanket removal of videos unless clearly defamatory.
Vague or chilling orders that deter legitimate criticism.

Instead, courts must adopt a fact-specific, narrowly tailored approach, weighing the public interest in knowing against the right to reputation.

CONCLUSION

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in this case is a forward-looking decision that respects the democratization of opinions ushered in by social media, while still providing guardrails against irresponsible commentary. It marks a clear endorsement of fact-based criticism, underpinned by responsible conduct, even when made by private citizens or influencers rather than legacy media houses. As the creator economy continues to grow, such judgments will help shape an environment where free speech, consumer rights, and brand reputation can coexist in a delicate but necessary balance.

Footnotes

1 CS(COMM) 420/2024

2 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 60

3 AIR 2006 Delhi 300; 126 (2006) DLT 535

4 Supra note 3

5 CS(OS) 661/2022

6 2010 (42) PTC 88 (Del)

7 2011 (45) PTC 275 (Del)

8 https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/sites/default/files/E%20commerce%20rules.pdf?utm

9 (1891) 2 Ch 269