Youtuber's Disparaging Claims About Product Can Restrict Company's Freedom Of Trade: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently granted interim relief to a water purifier company by restraining a YouTuber from making videos containing disparaging and defamatory statements about the company's product. Justice N Senthilkumar observed that the false statements made by the YouTuber would put an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade guaranteed to the company under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court added that the defamatory statements made by the YouTuber would not only affect the company's goodwill, but would also affect its business prospects and commercial standing. “Since the first respondent's [Youtuber's] act of publishing false statements would amount to an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade of the applicant [company] and the same is also violative of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the first respondent's defamatory and disparaging conduct would not only injure the applicant's reputation and goodwill, but also would adversely affect the applicant's business prospects and commercial standing in the market and therefore, the same have to be protected,” the court said. The court was dealing with an application filed by the Nannir Water Sources LLP, a company engaged in the development, manufacture, supply, installation and servicing of water treatment/conditioning systems. The company had sought an interim injunction restraining a YouTuber from making content against its product. The company submitted that its product was eco-friendly, electricity-free, and required minimal maintenance. It was submitted that the company came to know that the respondent had published a video in his YouTube channel reviewing the product. It was submitted that the respondent had made malicious and misleading statements, which have created unwarranted doubts in the mind of the public regarding the product's efficiency and have made the consumers hesitant to buy the product. Relying on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Marico Limited vs. Abhijeet Bhansali, the company argued that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and not unfettered and could be subjected to reasonable restriction. It was argued that though commercial speech was a part of fundamental right, it could not be that the fundamental right so guaranteed could be abused by any individual by maligning and disparaging the products of others. The company argued that the false, misleading and disparaging statements made by the YouTuber would directly interfere with and obstruct the company's fundamental right to lawful trade and business. Noting that there was a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in favour of the company, the court was inclined to grant the interim relief. “Since the applicant/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and irreparable hardship have also been established, this Court is of the view that the applicant/plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss, if interim injunction is not granted,” the court said. The court thus granted interim relief and directed YouTube to remove the video. Counsel for Applicant: Mr. Ramesh Ganapathy Case Title: Nannir Water Sources LLP v. Syed Imran and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 464 Case No: O. A. No s . 1107 & 1108 of 2025 & A.No. 5922 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 302 of 2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Youtuber's Disparaging Claims About Product Can Restrict Company's Freedom Of Trade: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags