Social media content creators significantly shape public perspectives, consumer choices, and trends. With increasing powers at their disposal, including a broad range of interventions on behalf of social media platforms like Instagram, YouTube or Facebook, content creators exercise great influence on their follower base and are considered trusted information sources. Even when they command fearsome potential in the social media sphere, content creators must play by ethical standards, transparency, and an understanding of legal outlines in order to protect their audiences and themselves from being harmed.
The case Zydus Wellness vs Prashant Desai, deeply interrogates the scope of freedom of speech under article 19, for social media influencers, especially when their words are published in the public domain. Zydus Wellness, the plaintiff and owner of Complan filed a case against a prominent influencer Prashant Desai, the respondent, for a negative video made and posted by him on his social media. Desai said in the video that Complan had too much sugar for children, an amount exceeding the daily limit than what is recommended, and shouldn't be given to kids. Zydus Wellness had contended that the observations made by Desai in his post were false, defamatory and unscientific leading to damage of reputation to it's product being sold for decades when it was complying with Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regulations. The company asked the HC for legal relief to restrain Desai from making 'defamatory statements' in future, and sought that his video should be removed from social media platforms.
In particular, the judgment of the court seemed to revolve around two main questions: what is an influencer and how far can free speech go. A major problem was the complete lack of qualifications on the part of Desai to comment authoritatively about nutritional science. The court found that, Desai though influential, was not a doctor, nutritionist or a dietitian, therefore was not in a position to give an appropriate advice about health in consequence. Zydus' legal team kept asserting that his words breached ASCI criteria, which required influencers making health-related claims to have adequate qualifications. Despite having certificates from Stanford University and Harvard Medical School, Desai's claim to be an expert in nutrition was denied because the court deemed them inadequate to qualify someone as a nutritional expert. The court stated that influencers must act responsibly when making public statements, especially in sensitive industries like health and nutrition, where misinformation can have wide-ranging consequences.
Additionally, the court considered the broader impact of Desai's video. Social media influencers like Desai, with a large following, have the power to shape public opinion instantly. Emphasising that freedom of speech, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right but not an absolute one as it could be restricted on grounds none other than those specified in Article 19 itself.
The defendant's video directly encouraged parents to avoid using Complan, leading the court to conclude that his actions amounted to disparagement. The court emphasized that the language and tone of Desai's video were damaging, especially as he identified the plaintiff's product by name, making it clear that his intent was to undermine the brand's reputation.
In a larger perspective, the judgment acts as another hint towards forming metes and bounds of regulatory regime for social media influencers in India. The court said that, with high follower counts comes responsibility to the public particularly in matters where influencing health and safety. The judgment also reflects the increasing legal scrutiny on influencer marketing, particularly in sectors like health and nutrition. Desai has been ordered by the court to remove the video within two weeks and refrain from making any further defamatory statements about Complan, thus underscoring the court's stance that influencers cannot escape responsibility for the impact of their public statements.
This case marks as a major precedent on the legal obligations of social media influencers. It states that influencers have a right to an opinion, as long as they can guarantee that it is based on scientific facts in context of public health discussions. This ruling by the court also highlights that influencers need to follow guidelines set for their industry, such as those of ASCI and be wary before making claims which could harm reputation of a company. In the end, the judgement comes as a relief to those who anticipated an absolute endorsement of free speech but also keeps faith with protecting corporate reputations making it a remarkable ruling on regulating social media influence in India.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
