From Reels to Real Trouble: Legal Limits on Content Creations

Photo by Magnus Andersson on Unsplash

The rapid proliferation of content creators—ranging from YouTubers and influencers to meme page admins and digital reviewers—has fundamentally transformed the media and entertainment landscape in India. However, in this fast-evolving ecosystem of reels, retweets, and viral trends, it is imperative to remember that the digital space is not devoid of legal regulation. Online expression is subject to a complex framework of laws, and many creators have inadvertently found themselves exposed to significant legal consequences for content that, at first glance, may have appeared harmless. This blog post discusses certain recent developments that underscore this risk.

In April 2025, the parent company of Dettol, Reckitt Benckiser, instituted defamation proceedings against a dermatologist and two digital influencers who, during a podcast and an accompanying Instagram reel, described Dettol as a “floor cleaner” and alleged that its use could “burn wounds and delay healing.” After hearing the parties, the Delhi High Court directed the removal of the content and restrained the individuals from making similar statements in the future. The case illustrates the degree of liability that may attach to public commentary—particularly when it pertains to products in the health and safety domain. Around the same time, actor Dhanush’s production entity, Wunderbar Films, initiated a ₹1 crore copyright infringement suit against actress Nayanthara and director Vignesh Shivan. The claim arose from their unauthorised use of behind-the-scenes footage from the film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan in a Netflix documentary. These disputes, though arising in commercial contexts, highlight legal principles that are equally applicable to individual digital creators—particularly in the areas of copyright and defamation.

In another instance, a YouTube content creator included a snippet of a popular Bollywood song as background music in a travel vlog. Although the video gained substantial traction, it was soon removed pursuant to a copyright claim. The creator had not obtained a license for the song’s use, and was unaware that even a few seconds of copyrighted material could lead to takedown actions or formal legal notices. Under Indian law, copyright infringement carries significant consequences. Notwithsanding that Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides limited protection under the doctrines of “fair dealing” for purposes such as criticism, review, or education, these exceptions are narrowly construed and seldom extend to monetised or entertainment-focused content.

Defamation is another frequently encountered risk. In one notable instance, a beauty influencer publicly accused a skincare brand of including “toxic chemicals” in its products. When the influencer failed to substantiate these claims with credible evidence, the company responded with a defamation notice, asserting that its commercial reputation had been harmed. Indian jurisprudence recognises both civil and criminal defamation, and the boundary between permissible opinion and actionable falsehood can become increasingly blurred when amplified to large audiences through social media.

Apart from this, the privacy violations also warrant close attention. A lifestyle vlogger, for example, once filmed a casual interaction with a delivery person and uploaded the footage online with humorous commentary. The video—which revealed the delivery agent’s face and name—was widely circulated and ultimately reported to the employer. Following a formal complaint, the video was taken down. It is important to note that the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and publishing identifiable personal information without consent may result in civil liability and reputational damage.

In the realm of digital marketing, the need for transparency has attracted regulatory scrutiny. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has issued clear guidelines mandating that all sponsored or paid content must be appropriately disclosed. Despite this, several influencers have been cautioned in recent years for promoting health and wellness products without such disclosures. These omissions are not only unethical but may also amount to misleading advertisements under consumer protection legislation.

Creators must also exercise caution when engaging in commentary related to sensitive social or political matters. While Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, or the sovereignty of India. Content that mocks, targets, or incites hatred against individuals or communities based on religion, caste, gender, or sexual orientation can invite prosecution under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 in addition to resulting in deplatforming or demonetisation. For instance, in March 2025, a well-known stand-up comedian was named in multiple FIRs following the performance of a parody song that described a senior political figure as a "traitor." The content provoked significant backlash, culminating in vandalism at the venue by political supporters. The comedian subsequently sought anticipatory bail, citing threats to personal safety and asserting the right to freedom of expression under Article 19. This episode demonstrates the thin line between satire and defamation, especially when political sentiments are involved.

In conclusion, while the digital age offers unprecedented opportunities for self-expression and entrepreneurship, it also imposes legal and ethical obligations on content creators. The internet may serve as a global stage, but it is not an unregulated one. The most successful content not only entertains or informs—it respects legal boundaries. Before publishing that next viral video, edgy post, or branded endorsement, creators would do well to pause and consider: Is this legally sound and ethically defensible?

Our firm advised a digital creator navigating an online defamation dispute—reminding us just how crucial it is to be aware of the laws that govern digital expression.