Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant development, Advocate Syam Padman, appointed as the Amicus Curiae by Justice Devan Ramachandran of the Kerala High Court, has delved into the pressing issues of unregulated online reviews by self-proclaimed film reviewers and social media influencers. He has made several recommendations for new guidelines including a standout suggestion for implementation of a 48-hour waiting period before reviews can be published following a film's release. This ‘cooling-off period' aims to provide a buffer against immediate negative backlash, allowing audiences to form their own opinions without undue influence from social media commentators.

Among the proposals recommended, is also the establishment of a dedicated portal managed by the cyber cell specifically for addressing complaints related to “review bombing” i.e. the flooding of reviews with usually negative remarks.

The report highlighted the substantial influence that social media influencers exert on public film-watching decisions, acknowledging the dual potential to either promote or detrimentally affect films. In response, it advocated for the establishment of ethical standards and regulatory oversight for film reviewers on digital platforms, clearly distinguishing between constructive criticism and malicious targeting and adhering to the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority.

Additionally, the report suggests enforcing mandatory compliance with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) framework for all review sites to eliminate biases and prevent fraudulent reviews.

The case arose from a plea by the director of 'Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam', who sought a judicial order to restrain social media influencers and film-reviewing vloggers from publishing any reviews for at least seven days post the film's release. The plea highlighted the negative impacts of unchecked digital criticism on films immediately upon their release, often by reviewers who haven't even watched the films. According to the petitioner, this trend leads to significant financial losses and undermines the creative efforts of filmmakers, affecting the film industry at large.

During an earlier hearing in November 2023, the single judge bench of Justice Ramachandran had said, "Reviews are intended to inform and enlighten, but not to destroy and extort”. The high court has been critical of film reviewers who are not registered with any organisation, lack accreditation, and do not adhere to any set guidelines while publishing their content on online platforms.

The court passed an order observing that "writ petition of individuals behind the films cannot be sacrificed at the altar of freedom of expression asserted by individuals who seem to be under the impression that they are not governed by any parameter or regulations, particularly when there is nothing on record to show that any of them are registered or akin to journalists or such other service providers".

Other recommendations suggested in the report include:

• Monitoring social media platforms and review sites for compliance with the new guidelines to uphold the integrity of film criticism.
• Educating filmmakers, reviewers, and the public about the ethical standards and legal implications of film reviewing practices.
• Coordinating with film industry stakeholders to develop a comprehensive response strategy against malicious review practices and review bombing.

Case title: Mubeen Rauf v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matter