The order defines social media influencers as individuals who have acquired a considerable follower base on social media along with some amount of credibility when it comes to the space in which they operate. According to the judge, these influencers often “employ the goodwill they enjoy amongst their followers/viewers to promote a brand, support a cause or persuade them to do or omit doing an act.”

‘Special damage’ in tort law has nothing to do with the value of loss caused to a person, but whether there is some form of irreparable loss to them in terms of reputation. When looking at whether or not Bhansali had caused special damage to Marico and Parachute, the judge noted the 1,08,000 views, the 2,500 or so ‘likes’ and several comments by viewers, including comments saying they would no longer use Parachute, and that they would share the video with others. The nature of the comments and the numbers here were sufficient according to the judge to show that there was damage to their reputation. While Justice Kathawalla didn’t expressly refer to Bhansali as a social media influencer in this part of the order, if this is how a court will assess special damage, influencers are likely to be more vulnerable, as their large subscriber/follower count will mean more views, and will also mean more people are likely to agree with their opinion and trust it.

Bombay High Court Order Could Spell Trouble for Social Media Influencers

“Social Media influencers, whether their audience is significant or small, impact the lives of everybody who watches their content. They do have a responsibility to ensure what they are publishing is not harmful or offensive.”

Bombay High Court in Marico vs Abhijeet Bhansali

On 15 January, the Bombay High Court allowed a request by FMCG giant Marico Limited for an interim injunction against vlogger Abhijeet Bhansali, requiring him to take down a video in which he reviews Parachute Coconut Oil – which the company claims made disparaging remarks about their product.

The order is not a final decision on the main case under the tort of disparagement, but is an interim relief for Marico, which argued that allowing this video by Bhansali – who runs the YouTube channel ‘Bearded Chokra’ which has 152 thousand subscribers – to stay online was causing them irreparable damage, and thus, needed to be taken down at least till the time the court decides the main case.

BECOME A MEMBER

Bombay HC Order Could Spell Trouble for Social Media Influencers

Social media influencers have a higher responsibility to ensure their content is not misleading, says high court.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from news and law

Topics: Bombay High Court YouTube Marico