Marico Limited v Abhijeet Bhansali
🧑⚖️ Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali
🏛️ Court:
Bombay High Court
📅 Year:
2019
🔍 Background / Facts of the Case
Marico Limited is a well-known consumer goods company that manufactures and markets hair oil under the brand "Parachute", a very popular coconut oil brand in India.
Abhijeet Bhansali is a YouTuber and social media influencer who runs a YouTube channel related to hair care, grooming, and cosmetic product reviews.
Bhansali published a video review on YouTube in which he made critical remarks about Marico’s "Parachute Coconut Oil", claiming that:
The oil was not "pure" coconut oil.
It may not be good for hair health.
He questioned the product’s quality and effectiveness.
Marico claimed that these remarks were misleading, defamatory, and damaged the reputation of their brand.
Marico approached the court seeking:
An injunction against Bhansali from publishing or circulating the video.
Damages for defamation and harm to brand reputation.
⚖️ Legal Issues Involved
Defamation or Fair Criticism?
Did Bhansali’s video amount to defamation, or was it fair comment made in the public interest?
Freedom of Speech vs. Brand Reputation
How to balance an influencer's right to free expression with a company’s right to protect its goodwill?
Misleading or Factual Commentary
Was the content based on facts or falsehoods?
📚 Arguments by Marico (Plaintiff)
The video contained false statements and was not backed by scientific evidence.
It was damaging to the brand’s goodwill built over years.
The statements were misleading and exaggerated, especially since the influencer had a large following, which could influence consumer opinion.
The video had a commercial motive — to gain views and followers by targeting a popular brand.
📢 Arguments by Abhijeet Bhansali (Defendant)
Claimed the video was a review based on personal research and experience.
He did not intend to defame but to educate viewers.
Invoked the principle of freedom of speech and consumer awareness.
Asserted that brands are not immune to criticism, especially in the age of social media.
🧑⚖️ Court's Judgment (Bombay High Court)
✅ Key Observations:
Right to Free Speech is important, especially for influencers and content creators who serve as modern-day reviewers.
However, the right does not include spreading misinformation or making unsubstantiated allegations against a brand.
The influence of social media personalities is wide-reaching, and therefore, greater responsibility lies on them when criticizing products.
Criticism is allowed, but it must be honest, fact-based, and not misleading.
⚖️ Final Decision:
The court partially ruled in favor of Marico:
Held that certain statements in the video were misleading.
Directed Bhansali to take down the video in its existing form.
However, it did not completely restrict his right to review or comment in the future, provided the content was balanced and factual.
🧠 Legal Principles Established
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| ✅ Fair Criticism | Criticism is allowed if it is honest and based on facts. |
| ❌ Defamation through False Claims | Making baseless claims against a product can amount to defamation. |
| ⚖️ Balance of Rights | Courts must balance freedom of speech with protection of commercial reputation. |
| 🧑💻 Social Media Accountability | Influencers with large audiences carry a higher duty of care. |
📝 Impact and Significance of the Case
Influencer Accountability: This case set a significant precedent in India for social media influencers, highlighting that their statements carry legal consequences.
Brand Protection vs. Free Speech: It struck a balance between consumer rights to be informed and a brand's right to protect its goodwill.
Content Regulation: Encouraged responsible content creation, especially in industries like cosmetics, health, and personal care, where misinformation can be harmful.
🔚 Conclusion
The Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali case is a landmark judgment in the context of digital expression and brand protection. It recognizes that:
Social media is a powerful tool for consumer awareness.
However, criticism must be responsible, honest, and factually accurate.
Companies, while open to feedback, also have a right to protect their reputation from false and misleading attacks.
It serves as a warning to influencers and guidance to brands on navigating the intersection of public reviews and legal accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments