In a significant ruling that could reshape how product reviews are handled online, the Madras High Court has directed YouTube LLC to take down a video review published by the channel Buying Facts after a water-treatment company alleged that the review was defamatory, misleading, and damaging to its business reputation.
The order reinforces the principle that digital creators cannot hide behind “product reviews” to publish unverified or malicious content that harms a company’s goodwill.
Court Says Reviews Cannot Become Tools for Defamation
Justice N. Senthilkumar observed that YouTubers, while free to review products, cannot be allowed to damage a company’s reputation, goodwill or trade prospects under the guise of “honest reviewing”. The court held that content creators must act responsibly, especially when their reviews influence consumer decisions at scale.
The judge further noted that the contested video amounted to an unreasonable restriction on the company’s constitutional right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g).
The Case: Water Energiser Manufacturer vs YouTube Channel
Theni-based Nannir Water Source LLP, which manufactures eco-friendly water treatment systems for domestic, industrial and agricultural sectors, approached the court after a video uploaded on May 25 allegedly contained false and disparaging statements about its “water energiser”.
The company argued that:
- The review created unwarranted suspicion about the product’s efficacy
- Customers began hesitating to purchase the product
- The company risked substantial financial loss
- Their trademark-protected product was being misrepresented
The defendants, Syed Imran and Syed Abbas—operators of the Buying Facts channel—have been barred from circulating the video, and YouTube has been ordered to block access to it.
Court Draws Parallels With Earlier Marico Case
The plaintiff cited a similar 2021 case where the Bombay High Court granted Marico Limited an injunction against misleading reviews of Parachute coconut oil. Justice Senthilkumar agreed that companies have the right to protect their brand identity and market standing against misinformation or malicious criticism.
A Message to Content Creators
The ruling sends a strong warning:
Review responsibly, or face legal consequences.
While free speech remains protected, the court clarified that defamation, trademark infringement and commercial disparagement do not fall under its shield.
