The Delhi High Court has ruled that social media influencers are entitled to voice critical opinions against consumer brands on digital platforms, provided such statements are backed by scientific evidence.

The decision came while hearing a dispute between nutrition company San Nutrition Private Limited and influencer Arpit Mangal.

Justice Amit Bansal, rejecting San Nutrition’s plea for an interim injunction to restrain four influencers from posting negative reviews about its whey protein products, emphasized that restricting such speech would be premature before a full trial.

“It would be unreasonable to curtail freedom of speech and expression before the trial concludes. Reasonable criticism, commentary, and parody fall largely within the ambit of free speech protected under the Constitution,” the Court stated. “Hyperbole and exaggerated speech do not by themselves justify an interim injunction. Imposing such restraints would infringe upon the influencers' rights and deprive the public of critical health-related information.”

San Nutrition had filed the suit seeking to stop Arpit Mangal from making allegedly disparaging remarks about its products, arguing that the commentary amounted to defamation, disparagement, and trademark infringement. The Court, however, took a broader view, examining the balance between brand reputation, freedom of speech, and public interest.

In December 2024, Justice Bansal framed the central issue for adjudication: defining the limits of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution in light of the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), particularly in the context of influencer commentary on third-party goods and services.

Given the constitutional implications, the Court invited Google and Meta, represented by Advocates Aditya Gupta and Varun Pathak, respectively, to file submissions as amici curiae. The amici emphasized that such cases typically involve defamation (reputational harm), disparagement (economic harm), and trademark infringement (statutory rights), with defenses like truth and fair comment playing a critical role.

Recognizing the dual role of influencers as marketers and consumer watchdogs, the Court noted that businesses' reputations are important but must be weighed against the right to fair criticism based on evidence.

“The essence of [the influencer’s] videos is only to educate consumers. The comments, prima facie, constitute an honest opinion grounded in sufficient factual basis," the Court observed.

Tests conducted by three NABL-accredited labs, including Eurofins and Micro Tech Laboratory, revealed that San Nutrition’s products had lower protein content than advertised. Notably, San Nutrition did not submit any counter-evidence to challenge these findings.

The Court addressed the brand's objection to terms like "ghatiya" (inferior) and satirical references such as “Doctor Has No Choice,” clarifying that such expressions fall within the ambit of protected speech.

“The word ‘ghatiya’ merely conveys ‘sub-standard.’ Exaggerated or hyperbolic language does not automatically amount to defamation,” the Court held. It further noted that satirical commentary, as previously upheld in the Greenpeace case, is permissible under the right to freedom of expression.

On trademark claims, the Court ruled that merely referring to a brand during a review does not constitute trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

"The defendants have used the plaintiff’s marks only to review the products, not in the course of trade," the judgment clarified.

Justice Bansal reiterated that granting an interim injunction would unjustly restrict free expression and deprive the public of vital health-related information.

“Imposing an interim injunction would place unjustified fetters on free speech and restrict the public’s right to receive information,” he stressed.

The ruling laid down several important principles for influencer commentary:

• Use of Brand Names: Influencers may use brand names and display products during reviews without infringing trademark rights;

• Evidence-Based Criticism: Criticism backed by verifiable test results provides a strong defense against defamation claims;

• Satire and Exaggeration: Satirical references and exaggerated language are protected forms of expression.

San Nutrition’s request for an interim injunction was ultimately dismissed.

The case reflects a broader trend where brands are increasingly seeking legal remedies against influencer criticism. Recent examples include Mondelez India’s defamation suit against influencer Revant Himatsingka (popularly known as FoodPharmer) over comments on Bournvita, an order restraining Scholars Den from referring to edtech company Physics Wallah as “sasta wallah” in advertisements, and Reckitt’s legal action against influencers commenting on Dettol products.

San Nutrition was represented by Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak along with Advocates Kangan Roda, Abhishek R, Tanishq Sharma, and Chirantan Priyadarshan. Influencer Arpit Mangal was represented by Advocates Ramchandra Madan and Tushar Nigam.