Unverified Products Peddled by Internet Quacks Endanger Public Trust and Health: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Influencer Behind Mass Eye Irritation from Hair Oil

“Advertising a Product Without Scientific Backing is Not Innovation, It is Criminal Irresponsibility – Unsafe, Untested Products Cannot Be Protected Under the Guise of Herbal Remedies or Free Speech - Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a strongly-worded and reportable judgment delivered by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail of a self-styled hair stylist and social media influencer accused of causing severe health hazards to over 70 individuals through an unverified hair oil promoted via social media advertisements.

“He Sold a Dream, and Delivered Injury” – Court Notes Harm to Over 70 People Due to Influencer’s Product

The petitioner, who held a camp at Kali Mata Temple, Sangrur, on 16 March 2025, sold his so-called “herbal cure for baldness” to over 500 people. What followed was a mass incident of contact dermatitis, with 71 individuals reporting burning eyes, facial swelling, and irritation severe enough to require hospitalization at Civil Hospital, Sangrur.

Quoting the report of the Senior Medical Officer, the Court observed:

“The cause of reaction was severe contact dermatitis — a kind of conjunctivitis caused by contact with an irritant. While the injuries are simple in nature, vision loss could have occurred if the cornea got involved.”

“Social Media Influencers Exploiting Public Insecurities Must Be Held to Account” – Court Condemns Quackery in the Garb of Herbal Health

Justice Brar did not limit his ruling to legal technicalities. He reflected on the larger societal implications of allowing unregulated individuals to market pseudo-medical products:

“The desperation to look attractive and save the receding stocks has a chokehold on men and women alike, even today.”

“The present matter is yet another unfortunate example of internet-famous, unqualified quacks taking advantage of common man’s insecurities.”

Referencing Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the Court remarked: “Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind; and therefore is winged Cupid painted blind.”

It was an eloquent rebuke to the toxic beauty standards and manipulative marketing strategies employed by untrained online influencers.

Court Emphasizes the Duty of the State to Protect Consumers

The judgment emphasized that untested health products should not be allowed to enter the market and that State authorities must act firmly: “A product must only be introduced in the market after ensuring its safety and determining possible side-effects, to avoid or mitigate any harm.”

“Advertising a product making tall, misleading claims, without any scientific evidence or clinical testing to back it up, must be strictly condemned.”

Petitioner’s Claim of Herbal Innovation Dismissed as Legally Irrelevant

The petitioner’s defence — that he was a well-known hair stylist with 86,900 social media followers, and had even applied for a patent — was flatly rejected by the Court. His assertion that the users failed to follow instructions properly was also found to be unsustainable, given the scale of harm.

“He sold a bottle of the said oil along with a bottle of shampoo for Rs.1300/-. It appears that about 500 persons were in attendance at the event and as many as 71 of them faced severe irritation in the eyes due to the use of the said oil.”

Anticipatory Bail Denied – Public Health Considered Paramount

After reviewing the status report and hearing both sides, the Court unequivocally refused to grant anticipatory bail, holding:

“In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it apposite to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.”

The Court also observed that the responsibility of the State to protect public health overrides individual claims of commercial innovation.

Court Sends Strong Message to Unregulated Health Influencers

The High Court's decision sends a powerful and necessary message in the era of digital marketing — misleading the public through untested health claims will be met with legal consequences. The judgment draws a clear boundary between freedom of speech in marketing and criminal negligence in product liability.

Justice Brar’s ruling underscores that public trust, health, and regulatory compliance must be the bedrock of all commercial activity, especially those concerning health and well-being.

Date of Decision: 12 May 2025