In a notable ruling, the Delhi High Court addressed a legal battle between Cadbury’s Bournvita and FoodPharmer, a social media influencer. The court ruled that FoodPharmer can comment on facts regarding Bournvita but should refrain from making any disparaging or defamatory remarks against the product.
Background:
The case arose after FoodPharmer, through social media posts and videos, highlighted concerns over the health impacts of consuming Bournvita, questioning its sugar content and other ingredients. Cadbury’s Bournvita, one of the leading health drink brands in India, objected to these claims and argued that the content was misleading and tarnished the brand’s reputation.
Court’s Ruling:
The Delhi High Court acknowledged the influencer’s right to share factual information and engage in public discourse on health-related issues. However, the court drew a clear line between providing factual commentary and making disparaging remarks, stating that such criticisms must not go beyond the bounds of responsible commentary. Any form of exaggerated or misleading content that affects the brand’s reputation unfairly would be considered unlawful.
Implications:
This ruling underscores the balance between freedom of speech and protection against defamation, particularly in an age where social media influencers hold considerable sway over public opinion. It also highlights the responsibility influencers carry when discussing health products and the potential legal repercussions of unfounded claims.
Conclusion:
While FoodPharmer is permitted to critique factual aspects of Bournvita, the court’s decision ensures that such critiques are fair and based on verified information, safeguarding the brand from unjustified attacks.