India, April 30 -- The Delhi High Court has done well to uphold the right of social media influencers to criticise brands provided the criticism is based on facts and is scientifically valid. The court ruling that they can do this without the fear of being sued for defamation or copyright violation expands the domain of free speech. In an ideal scenario, a good-faith compact is implicit between consumers and brands - the latter will not misrepresent a product's impact on the former, especially if it is health-related. Claims related to health effects must be factual and disclosure about potential adverse effects, including of specific ingredients, must be made transparently. But, as things exist, this compact is not always fully honoured. There are context-specific regulations - such as on ingredient and nutritional value labelling for consumables - and an advertising self-regulatory organisation, but these haven't been effective in pushing brands to go beyond the minimum requirements in terms of claims and disclosures. Also, the import of label information is often difficult for the consumer to understand.This is the gap that, over the past few years, has been filled by social media influencers, some of whom have incurred costs in testing products against claims and giving the consumer a science-based assessment. This helps the latter make more conscious product choices . However, good faith and transparency is a two-way street. Influencers must disclose their interest in critiquing a product, their affiliations, and how they monetise their content. A competing brand sponsoring an influencer, even if the latter's review is fact-based, is not necessarily a fair act. Associations or sponsorships need to be disclosed upfront. There are instances of strategic interests potentially underlying funding opportunities, too. Influencers, endorsing or criticising a brand, must be meticulous about disclosures to avoid playing into the hands of vested interests....