Opinion
It’s the end of a free run for social media influencers
Summary
- In the context of today’s digital landscape, where misinformation on brands can spread like wildfire and ‘de-influencers’ have audiences, a court has ruled that social media influencers cannot go scot-free for the content they produce. As truth seekers, though, there is much good they could achieve.
In recent years, social media influencers have emerged as powerful voices in the marketplace, capable of shaping consumer opinions and driving trends. However, a recent court ruling serves as a crucial reminder that being a social media influencer is not a licence to operate without accountability or responsibility.
The case in question revolves around the increasingly popular trend of de-influencing, where influencers advise their followers against purchasing certain products.
The de-influencing movement encourages consumers to reconsider their purchases, pushing back against over-commercialization and promoting thoughtful consumption. On the surface, this seems like a positive development, allowing influencers to foster authenticity and transparency.
However, the line between genuine critique and sensationalism can be thin. De-influencing can easily slip into the latter and become a vehicle for unsubstantiated claims or personal biases, risking the very trust it seeks to cultivate among online audiences.
Also read: Sebi may rope in social media giants like Google to regulate finfluencers
Recent trends in de-influencing have drawn particular attention to food brands, which find themselves at the receiving end of aggressive critiques. Some influencers have taken to social media to mock these brands, labelling their products as “sugar-bombs" or “cancerous."
When such statements are made without scientific evidence or without appropriate expertise, they can lead to unnecessary fear-mongering among consumers.
In today’s digital landscape, where misinformation can spread like wildfire, the risks of unchecked opinions are significant. The algorithms that govern social media often favour sensationalist content, amplifying messages that may lack authenticity or accuracy.
This creates an environment where consumers are bombarded with conflicting information, making it challenging for them to discern what is factual.
The court ruling: A legal case against a prominent social media influencer brought these issues to the forefront. The influencer, who made disparaging claims about a well-established health product, faced legal repercussions for questioning its efficacy without the necessary qualifications or evidence to back his statements.
Also read: Brands fret as negative influencers rise, pushed toward credibility
The Delhi high court underscored that the product had operated in compliance with Indian regulations for several decades and the influencer’s unfounded assertions could jeopardize trust in the regulatory framework.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that social media influencers cannot have a free run without accountability. The court stated that “a social media influencer like the defendant cannot express and/or advocate his ideas/opinions freely without any substantive basis and/or backing and is expected to be sensible, prudent, careful, cautious, and pragmatic instead of being unwise and reckless, especially in today’s age when media is a powerful tool having an influence over all humanity."
Freedom of speech and its limits: While the Indian Constitution grants individuals the right to express their opinions freely, this freedom is not absolute.
The court highlighted that “while the constitution permits anyone to freely convey/share/opine about anybody and/or anything, it must be done without being slanderous, defamatory, or libellous, amounting to criticism and/or character assassination."
In this context, the influencer’s claims about the health product were deemed harmful, particularly because they could mislead consumers and undermine trust in regulatory bodies responsible for ensuring product safety.
They were considered defamatory on account of the tone that was deployed. The court placed particular emphasis on the importance of responsible conduct in the context of the defendant’s role as an influencer.
Also read: Private banks collaborate with social media influencers, but with caution
It held that the language and tone used by the defendant in the video suggested that he was ridiculing the brand rather than engaging in a constructive or informed critique.
The court found that the defendant’s behaviour was unbecoming of someone who claims to be a social media influencer, as his actions were not in line with the standards of professionalism, care and responsibility expected from individuals who have such a wide-reaching platform.
De-influencing 2.0—A new approach: De-influencing could serve a very valuable purpose if it keeps brands authentic and truthful. But there is a pressing need for a more responsible approach—what could be termed ‘De-influencing 2.0.’
As envisioned, this new version of online activism would prioritize fact-based, scientific discourse over sensationalism and unsubstantiated attacks on products and brands.
By focusing on credible information and well-researched opinions, influencers can help cultivate a better informed consumer base. Influencers who genuinely wish to make a positive impact can engage in constructive critiques and open dialogues with consumers and the companies that market these brands.
There is another opportunity to consider. This new version of de-influencing could also work with regulatory bodies. As consumer concerns evolve, it is essential for laws and guidelines to reflect these changes, ensuring that Indian industry remains accountable.
By working alongside stakeholders to address emerging issues, influencers can play a pivotal role in shaping a marketplace that prioritizes truth and integrity, and requires everyone—including influencers—to meet these standards.
