The case highlights the tension between the freedom of speech of social media influencers and the reputation rights of businesses. The case underscores the role of social media influencers in educating consumers about product quality and safety, while also emphasizing the need for accountability and transparency from businesses.

Background

San Nutrition Pvt Ltd (San Nutrition) filed a suit (CS(COMM) 420/2024) at the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain several social media influencers from posting videos on YouTube and Instagram that allegedly infringe their trademarks, defame, disparage, and engage in unfair trade practices.

The social media influencers that were targeted by San Nutrition in this suit and details of their media accounts are:

1. Arpit Mangal: YouTube channel under the handle @AllAboutNutrition and an Instagram account with the username @arpit_mangal_official.
2. Kabir Grover: YouTube channel under the handle @HealthByKilo and an Instagram account with the username @healthbykilo.
3. Manish Keshwani: YouTube channel under the handle @Manishhkeshwani and an Instagram account with the username @manishkeshwanifitness.
4. Avijit Roy: YouTube channel under the handle @COREFITLAB and an Instagram account with the username @corefitlab_official.

San Nutrition’s Arguments

San Nutrition claimed that they are engaged in the sale and marketing of various nutraceutical and healthcare supplement products under the trademarks DC DOCTOR’S CHOICE and other related marks. The influencers had uploaded videos on their social media handles in relation to San Nutrition brand, which as per them:

1. unauthorizedly and wrongfully use their trademarks in the videos, which amounted to infringement
2. content of the videos included false, malicious, and baseless claims about their products, which were intended to defame and disparage their brand.
3. the laboratory reports referred to in the videos were misleading because the laboratories were not recognized by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for testing nutraceutical supplements.
4. the misleading information in the videos negatively impacted consumers, especially those with diabetes, as the videos falsely claimed that the carbohydrate content in their products was higher than stated.
5. the influencers were taking advantage of their brand and reputation to garner views and popularity and were possibly funded and sponsored by their competitors.

The Social media Influencers argued

1. That their statements were based on factual evidence from laboratory tests. They claimed that the tests showed discrepancies in the protein and carbohydrate content of San Nutrition products compared to what was advertised.
2. That their primary goal was to protect consumers from potentially misleading or harmful products. By conducting independent tests and sharing their findings, they aimed to educate consumers and help them make informed decisions.
3. The influencers asserted that their comments were honest opinions based on the test results. They argued that their critiques were in the public interest, especially concerning health and nutrition.
4. That their critiques were within the bounds of fair comment and public interest. And are entitled to freedom of speech and expression.
5. That their actions were not driven by malice or an intent to defame San Nutrition. They argued that their critiques were based on genuine concerns about product quality and consumer safety.

Court’s Ruling

The Court Ruled in favour of the social media influencers and dismissed San Nutrition application for an interim injunction. The findings of the court are summarised below:

1. Truth and Fair Comment: The court found that the influencers had established a bona fide defence of truth and fair comment based on laboratory reports that showed discrepancies in the protein and carbohydrate content of San Nutrition products. The court noted that the San Nutrition failed to provide any material to counter the findings of the laboratory reports.
2. Public Interest: The court recognized that the influencers’ comments were in the public interest, especially concerning health and nutrition. The influencers aimed to educate consumers and help them make informed decisions.
3. Lack of Malice: The court concluded that the influencers’ actions were not driven by malice or an intent to defame San Nutrition. The influencers’ critiques were based on genuine concerns about product quality and consumer safety.
4. Freedom of Speech: The court emphasized the importance of protecting the right to freedom of speech and expression, as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court noted that the statements made by the influencers were within the bounds of fair comment and public interest.
5. Prima Facie Case: The court found that the San Nutrition had not made out a prima facie case for defamation, disparagement, or trademark infringement against the influencers.

Our comment

The decision provides valuable insights into the legal landscape surrounding social media influencers and their impact on businesses The court emphasized that influencers have the right to express their opinions, especially when it concerns public interest, such as health and nutrition. The court noted curtailing rights of social media influencers would also deprive the right of the public at large to receive information on matters of health.