Brand-influencer court battles set the boundaries for creators

“The Dettol case, along with other lawsuits centred around claims made by influencers, are likely to set significant precedents and pave the way for more robust legal frameworks in influencer marketing,” said Bharadwaj Jaishankar, partner at IndusLaw.

While the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has already formulated guidelines for creators, these lawsuits place an added responsibility on influencers to exercise greater caution, given their credibility and reach, Bharadwaj said. “As these cases gain visibility, they send a clear message to both influencers and brands that misleading claims can result in serious legal consequences.”

The high court ordered Raj Shamani, along with Ritik Chaturvedi, to remove objectionable content from a podcast episode featuring Dr. Manjot Marwah, a dermatologist, citing allegedly false, misleading, and defamatory remarks about Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd’s Dettol antiseptic.

A bench led by Justice Saurabh Banerjee on Tuesday ordered the influencers to edit the content within 24 hours as part of an amicable settlement between the parties. While the court accepted the creators’ plea to retain the edited video on YouTube, they were barred from re-uploading the original “defamatory” content on any platform.

“Though the [Dettol] video was taken down following the notice, the public debate—and legal action—highlighted how brands are aggressively protecting their reputation in the digital age, especially when influencer content has viral reach and commercial impact,” said Yatharth Rohila, an Advocate at law firm Aeddhaas Legal LLP.

Social media influencers are shaping consumer perception and purchasing decisions, but also facing heightened scrutiny. And this is not an isolated case of brands trying to protect their reputation.

In September, Zydus Wellness, the maker of health drink Complan, moved the Delhi High Court after influencer Prashant Desai claimed that the beverage contained more sugar than a child’s daily requirement. The company accused the creator of copyright infringement along with product disparagement.

A bench led by Justice Banerjee directed Desai to take down the videos. The court also noted that under the ASCI guidelines, for the posts related to health and nutrition, an influencer must have relevant qualifications such as a medical degree, or be a certified nurse, nutritionist, dietician, physiotherapist, psychologist, etc. Desai did not qualify.

Freedom of speech vs disparagement

In the Dettol case, health ‘de-influencer’ foodpharmer, known to create videos debunking nutritional claims, pointed out that the comments were made by a senior dermatologist who possessed a medical degree and is an expert in her field and the influencer only provided her a platform to speak.

“Our freedom allows us to express freely,” argued foodpharmer, whose real name is Revanth Himatsingka. “If a senior dermatologist or a doctor can not share his or her opinion on a podcast, then we are doing something wrong. We need to protect freedom of speech.”

Himatsingka was summoned to the Delhi High Court in October after Mondelez, the owner of health drink brand Bournvita, filed a suit against him for making disparaging videos. The court did not order him to take down the videos pertaining to the health beverage, but said, “[we] have not stopped you from speaking about it, just don’t disparage.”

Legal experts called for a middle ground between freedom of speech and responsible social media behaviour.

“The ruling [in the Dettol case] is a message that a balance must be struck between free speech and legal responsibilities. It is a reminder that influencers must be cautious about the content shared by them, and ensuring that their statements are accurate and based on credible information,” said Shiva Sapra, partner at law firm Kochar and Co.

“The decision also amplifies the need for influencers to respect intellectual property rights aside from the goodwill and reputations of brands, which has been earned through years, if not decades,” Sapra said.

According to Raheel Patel, partner at Gandhi Law Associates, the Dettol ruling isn’t groundbreaking but reinforces zero tolerance for misinformation in trusted consumer products. “While not a binding precedent, it raises accountability standards for influencer content.”

Criticism vs sensationalism

The industry watchdog ASCI also stressed upon the diligence by influencers given their popularity and influencing power. “While de-influencing can play a valuable role in keeping brands authentic and truthful and foster transparency in their messaging, it requires a fact-based and responsible approach,” said Manisha Kapoor, chief executive officer and secretary-general at ASCI.

“There is also a fine line between constructive criticism and sensationalism—crossing it can unjustly damage a brand’s reputation and create unnecessary fear among consumers,” she said. “Influencers have every right to voice their opinions, but they should do so in a manner that is respectful, fact-based, avoiding slander or defamation. The Indian courts have cautioned influencers against being reckless and slanderous in their videos.”

The head of the newly formed Influencer Governance Council, which introduced its code of standards last week, said influencers’ action amounted to tarnishing Dettol’s reputation.

“The creators have clearly defamed the brand without proper authentication and even if they had authentication, they had no right to make a joke about it on social media,” said Sahil Chopra, chairman of IIGC and cofounder of adtech platform iCubesWire. It is a violation of section 6.2 of the code that sets guidelines for deinfluencing, he said.