FoodPharmer Vs Bournvita: Disparagement Not Allowed But No Embargo On Stating Facts, Says Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court clarified on Wednesday that its previous directive to Revant Himatsingka, also known as the FoodPharmer, to stop making disparaging videos about well-known household beverages like Bournvita and Tang was only limited to preventing disparagement.

A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal underscored that there was no injunction against stating facts, and that FoodPharmer could continue making factual statements as a part of his videos or posts.

In response, FoodPharmer's counsel said that this was a case where the threshold of disparagement would have to be tested ultimately, and its outcome would delineate the freedom of expression to speak about such things.

Multinational giant Mondelez International initiated the case against FoodPharmer after his viral videos where he attempts to decode the real nutritional facts behind the so-called "health drinks".

On Oct. 15, the high court passed an interim order, directing FoodPharmer to stop posting disparaging posts or videos pertaining to Tang or Bournvita. Mondelez is the parent company of household products such as Bournvita, Tang, Cadbury Oreo, and the like.

Last year, FoodPharmer made a video calling out Bournvita regarding its deceptive marketing tactics, whereby the brand promises to make its consumers taller, sharper, and stronger. However, FoodPharmer showed the entire nation that the beverage mix is essentially 50% sugar.

For this, he simply referred to the nutritional information provided on the backside of the packaging. This video received overwhelming support from all sections of society, including the government, which forced Mondelez to slash Bournvita's sugar content by 15%.

In its aftermath, FoodPharmer became India's poster boy for inculcating healthy habits in its everyday life and has spearheaded the revolution of looking at the nutritional information before buying any packaged product from the market.