CHENNAI: Holding that YouTubers cannot make defamatory and disparaging statements on commercial products, the Madras High Court has restrained a YouTuber from posting such videos on the products of a water treatment service provider.
The interim injunction was granted by Justice N Senthilkumar recently on the civil suits and applications filed by Nannir Water Source LLP which provides water treatment services praying for restraining YouTuber Syed Imran from making defamatory videos against its products.
The court also remarked that posting videos without evidence would affect the constitutional rights of the company for doing business.
The judge directed the Resident Grievance Officer of YouTube Google LLC to remove the video posted by the YouTuber.
The judge said in the order that the YouTuber publishing false statements would amount to an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade of the applicant and it was also also violative of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
He further stated that the YouTuber'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.
Therefore, finding that the company has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and irreparable hardship have also been established, the judge said he was of the view that the company would be put to irreparable loss if an interim injunction was not granted. "Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for," he said, issuing notice to the respondents directing them to file the reply by December 17.
Advocate Ramesh Ganapathy, appearing for the company, submitted that Imran posted the defamatory videos on his channel 'Buying Facts' purportedly while reviewing the products of the firm.
The "malicious and misleading" statements created unwarranted doubts in the minds of the public regarding the efficacy of the products, thereby causing consumers to hesitate in purchasing them, which was evident from the comments attracted by the impugned videos, he told the court.
Stating that even though the YouTuber has freedom of speech and expression, the counsel noted that his misleading and disparaging videos directly interfered with and obstructed the fundamental right of the firm for doing business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.