The Delhi High Court ruled that social media influencers can criticise brands if their statements are backed by scientific evidence. Dismissing San Nutrition’s plea against negative whey protein reviews, the Court upheld the right to satire, hyperbole, and fair commentary under free speech, balancing consumer interests and business reputations.

The Delhi High Court on Monday, April 28th, ruled that social media influencers are permitted to make critical statements against consumer brands, provided such statements are backed by scientific evidence. The Court made this observation while rejecting San Nutrition Private Limited’s plea for an interim order to restrain four influencers from publishing negative reviews of its whey protein products.
Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, held that placing restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression before a full trial would be unreasonable. “Reasonable criticism, comment and parody is largely protected within the right to free speech under the Constitution,” the Court said.

It further noted that hyperbole, exaggerated speech, and parody do not entitle a party to interim relief, and restricting such speech would deprive the public of vital information, particularly concerning health.

San Nutrition had approached the Court against influencer Arpit Mangal, alleging that his remarks about their whey protein products were disparaging and defamatory. The Court was tasked with examining whether such influencer commentary amounted to defamation, disparagement, or trademark infringement, and to determine the scope of freedom of speech in this context.

Recognising the constitutional significance of the case, the Court invited submissions from Advocates Aditya Gupta and Varun Pathak, representing Google and Meta respectively, as amici curiae. The amici emphasised that cases like these typically engage three causes of action: defamation, disparagement, and trademark infringement, each with distinct legal standards.