Can Social Media Influencers Criticise Brands? Delhi High Court Answers

On April 28, 2025, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the right of social media influencers to criticise brands, provided that their comments are backed by scientific evidence. Justice Amit Bansal made this observation while rejecting a plea for interim relief filed by San Nutrition Private Limited against influencer Arpit Mangal and others.

San Nutrition had sought an injunction restraining four influencers from publishing negative reviews of its whey protein products. The Court, however, ruled that reasonable criticism, even if expressed through satire or hyperbole, falls within the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.

Key Observations of the Court in the San Nutrition Case

• Freedom of Expression: Justice Bansal underscored that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes the right to reasonable criticism and that curtailing this right prematurely through interim injunctions would be unjustifiable.
• Public Interest: The Court noted that influencers also act as consumer watchdogs and that critical commentary aimed at informing the public on health-related issues serves a larger societal purpose.
• Use of Satire and Strong Language: Terms such as “ghatiya” (substandard) and satirical expressions were held to be permissible forms of exaggerated speech, protected under the right to free expression.
• Trademark Use: The Court clarified that the mere mention of a brand for the purpose of review does not amount to trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Legal Analysis

The Court invited submissions from Google and Meta, represented by Advocates Aditya Gupta and Varun Pathak, as amici curiae, to examine the balance between three competing rights: the reputation of businesses, the freedom of speech of individuals, and the public’s right to information.

It was argued that:

• In defamation claims, truth and fair comment serve as defenses unless malice is proven;
• In cases of disparagement, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove malicious harm to its economic interests;
• Trademark use in the context of criticism is permissible if not made “in the course of trade.”

The Delhi High Court held that the influencers had relied on verified test reports from NABL-accredited laboratories, including Eurofins and Micro Tech Laboratory, which found discrepancies in the protein content of San Nutrition’s products. The company failed to produce any counter-evidence.

Thus, the influencers’ reviews were based on sufficient factual foundation and constituted honest opinions.

Court’s Conclusion

“Granting an interim injunction would result in putting fetters on their right to freedom of speech and would deprive the public at large of receiving information on matters of health.”

The Court dismissed San Nutrition’s application for interim relief, thereby allowing the influencers to continue posting their reviews, subject to the final outcome of the suit.

Broader Context

This decision comes in the wake of several high-profile litigations where brands have attempted to restrain influencers from publishing negative reviews. Recent examples include:

• Mondelez India’s defamation suit against influencer Revant Himatsingka (FoodPharmer) regarding Bournvita;
• Physics Wallah’s lawsuit against Scholars Den for disparaging advertisements;
• Reckitt’s suit against influencers making negative comments about Dettol.