Kerala HC Expert Advisor Calls for Guidelines on movie reviews

In a matter concerning the review bombing of films, LiveLaw reported on March 12 that the Amicus Curiae has recommended the need for guidelines for movie reviews by social media influencers to protect the commercial interests of filmmakers as well as the viewing experience of consumers.

What’s the case about?

The case pertains to a writ petition filed in 2023 by the director of the film ‘Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam’, seeking a gag order to restrict social media influencers and film reviewing vloggers from publishing reviews of the said film on social media for at least 7 days from the date of its release. On October 5, 2023, Justice Devan Ramachandran appointed Syam Padman as an Amicus Curiae to the case.

According to the Court’s October 6, 2023, order, the petitioner had raised a concern that “there is now an organized racket, particularly in the ‘online spectrum’, of deliberately denigrating and tarnishing a movie with the intention of unjust enrichment, coupled with blackmail and extortion”. The plea also stated that there is a need to strike a balance between freedom of speech and the protection of a filmmaker’s work.

On the Court’s inquiry with the State police regarding the investigation of “review bombing”, the Kerala government on October 10 had informed that it is working on the modalities to control such reviews. The State Police stated that it would consult with all the stakeholders involved in the industry, including the producers, directors, financiers, etc., to come up with detailed protocols.

During the hearings last year, the Amicus Curiae also brought the Court’s attention to anonymous reviewers running online pages with fictional names, which he argued would fall foul of Sections 66(C) [dealing with identity theft] and 66(D) [dealing with impersonation], read with Section 79 [offering safe harbour protections to platforms] of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) .

In November 2023, the Court had observed, “The reputation of individuals behind a film cannot be sacrificed at the altar of unbridled freedom of expression asserted by individuals, who act under the mistaken impression that they are not governed by any parameters/regulations, particularly when there is nothing on record to show that any of them are registered, akin to journalists or such other service providers.”

Last month, Advocate Shyam Padman informed the Court that he would be assessing the need to create a dedicated portal for producers and the general public to report malicious and blackmailing ‘review bombing’.

Why does it matter?

The petitioner’s allegations echo a broader trend of extortion by online content creators and fake reviews, similar to issues reported in the e-commerce sector as well. Under the ‘Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022’, endorsers need to disclose the connection between the endorser and trader, and influencers are expected to add required disclaimers and disclosures for paid content that they post online. In that case, the need for additional guidelines is questionable. Secondly, while the concerns raised by the filmmaker are worth addressing, it is also important to note that proactive monitoring of movies can lead to censorship of legitimate criticism, and satirical content. This will potentially infringe upon freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)a of the Constitution, of independent journalists, writers, film enthusiasts, etc

Also Read:

STAY ON TOP OF TECH NEWS: Our daily newsletter with the top story of the day from MediaNama, delivered to your inbox before 9 AM. Click here to sign up today!