Can influencers criticize brands without legal trouble? The Delhi High Court confirms they can, as long as their claims are fact-based. Learn what this means for influencer marketing, free speech, and brand reputation law in India.
In a landmark judgment that could significantly shape the influencer ecosystem and brand accountability in India, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that social media influencers can criticize brands, as long as their claims are based on verifiable facts.
Can Influencers Criticize Brands Based on Facts?
Delhi High Court said Yes. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by San Nutrition Private Limited against four influencers who had posted critical content about one of its nutritional products on YouTube and Instagram. The company had sought a temporary injunction to restrain the content, claiming defamation, trademark infringement, and unfair trade practices.
However, the Court disagreed.
Case Background – A Defamation & Trademark suite
Delhi High Court
San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal & Others,
CS(COMM) 420/2024, Dated 28 April 2025
The case arose from a suit filed by San Nutrition Private Limited, a company engaged in the marketing and sale of nutraceutical products such as protein powders, supplements, and vitamins. The company approached the Delhi High Court against four social media influencers – Arpit Mangal, Kabir Grover, Manish Keshwani, and Avijit Roy, alleging that they had published videos on platforms like YouTube and Instagram containing incorrect and defamatory statements that damaged its reputation.
The brand tried to sue influencers for defamation and trademark misuse after harsh reviews of their protein powder – citing sarcastic remarks like “Doctor Has No Choice” as damaging and calling a product “Ghatiya”.
Interestingly, before approaching the Court, the company had requested Google to remove the videos from YouTube. Google, however, refused, stating it does not adjudicate the accuracy of content for defamation purposes.
While dismissing a defamation suit filed by San Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. against four influencers, Delhi High Court observed that the criticisms made in the videos were grounded in evidence and not mere speculation
Court’s Observations
While rejecting the plea for interim relief, the Court noted that:
-
The influencers’ comments were not baseless or malicious, and were supported by test results—including from kits comparable to those used by NABL-accredited labs.
-
There was no evidence that the influencers acted in bad faith or had any commercial arrangements with competitor brands.
-
The right to freedom of speech and expression, particularly when used to inform and caution consumers, must be protected.
He court further emphasized the growing influence of digital creators in shaping public opinion about products and brands. The Court recognized that influencers not only act as promoters but also as watchdogs, echoing consumer concerns in the public domain.
The Delhi High Court in view of the above facts, remarked:
“Influencer marketing has emerged as a pivotal force in India’s digital landscape reshaping how consumers connect with brands across sectors, from fashion and beauty to food, technology and finance.
This surge in the influencer marketing industry is largely attributable to increased internet penetration, proliferation of affordable smartphones and rise of regional content creators who cater to diverse audiences across the country. Platforms like Instagram and YouTube, which serve as primary channels for influencers to share content and collaborate with brands, have become central to this phenomenon.”
Legal Significance
The judgment reinforces several critical legal principles:
-
Freedom of Speech Over Brand Sensitivities
Reasonable criticism—even if damaging to a brand—does not automatically qualify as defamation. -
Truth and Fair Comment as Valid Defences
The Court accepted that the influencers’ remarks were supported by material evidence, shielding them from interim censorship. -
Digital Critique Isn’t Exempt from Legal Protections
The Court made it clear that the digital medium’s wide reach does not warrant stricter standards for injunctive relief. -
Commercial Allegations Need Proof
Claims that an influencer was promoting a rival brand must be backed by concrete evidence—not assumptions. -
No Trademark Misuse
The use of the Plaintiff’s brand names was held to be merely descriptive and necessary for reviewing the product—not for marketing other goods.
The Court noted that in the digital age, influencers have become watchdogs, and while their reach is vast, so is their responsibility to remain factual.
A Win for Consumer Advocacy
Perhaps the most important takeaway from this case is its support for digital consumer advocacy. In an age where consumers rely heavily on influencers for product insights, the Court’s decision upholds the right to informed criticism—without fear of legal retaliation, as long as it is done responsibly. While it opens avenues for transparency, it also carries the risk of misinformation. But suppressing critique merely on the basis of brand discomfort would set a dangerous precedent.
Why it matters:
✅ Influencers can criticize products—if they stick to facts.
❌ Brands can’t silence opinions just because they hurt.
🔖 Trademark use in reviews ≠ misuse.
Conclusion
This decision by the Delhi High Court is a milestone in the evolving relationship between law, digital speech, and brand reputation. It sends a strong message: facts matter more than fame, and free speech will be protected, even in the era of social media scrutiny.
As influencer marketing continues to dominate the digital space, both brands and content creators would do well to treat this judgment as a reference point for navigating disputes in an increasingly vocal online world.
…
This content is for general information only, not a legal advice. For specific legal concerns, contact Lawfluencers at hello@lawfluencers.com!
Join our social media community at linktr.ee/lawfluencers for the latest updates on laws and regulations affecting individuals and businesses.