Delhi High Court Silences YouTubers: Unbacked Smartphone Slams Deemed Disparaging

In a swift move on April 28, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to NxtQuantum Shift Technologies India Private Limited (trading as AI+ Smartphones) and its CEO Madhav Sheth against YouTube channels TechWiser and TechBar, along with John Doe defendants. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that their videos prima facie crossed into disparagement territory by making unverified claims about the company's "sovereign" Indian smartphones, potentially harming sales and goodwill.

Patriotism Pitched, Privacy Promised: AI+ Enters the Fray

AI+ Smartphones burst onto the scene in July 2025 as India's self-proclaimed first fully sovereign brand—designed, made, and data-hosted entirely in India. Led by industry veteran Madhav Sheth, formerly CEO of Realme India and later involved with Honor and Alcatel ventures, the company launched models like AI+ Pulse and Nova series on NxtQuantum OS. Backed by heavy investments in R&D, manufacturing in Noida, and MeitY-approved Google Cloud storage, AI+ positioned itself as a privacy-focused alternative to Chinese-dominated budget phones.

The dispute ignited in April 2026 when TechWiser uploaded "This Indian Phone Is A Marketing Disaster!" (259k+ views) and TechBar posted "FAKE Indian Company - Needs to STOP" (332k+ views). These videos accused AI+ of hidden Chinese apps, data privacy flaws, bloatware hypocrisy, copied designs (e.g., resembling Nubia Flip and Huawei buds), and questioned Sheth's track record across brands, urging viewers to "stay away" and buy from rivals like Lava or Poco.

Plaintiffs sued under a commercial dispute, seeking injunctions via Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, claiming the content was false, malicious, and aimed at tanking their nascent brand's momentum after media buzz and investor interest.

Plaintiffs' Plea: From Fair Critique to Malicious Hit Job

AI+ argued the videos weren't honest reviews but calculated smears. Key gripes: - False privacy alarms : Claims of hidden Chinese apps (e.g., Phone Cloner from Shanghai ProCom) and data leaks ignored NxtQuantum OS's zero-trust security and India-only storage. - Misleading origins : Allegations of "fake Indian" status overlooked full Indian ownership, manufacturing, and OS development. - Founder smears : Irrelevant digs at Sheth's past ventures painted a "hit-and-run" pattern, eroding trust. - Viral damage : With lakhs of views across YouTube, X, and LinkedIn, plus calls to avoid purchases, plaintiffs feared irreparable sales dips and goodwill erosion.

They stressed no technical benchmarks or third-party tests backed the critiques, crossing from opinion into injurious falsehood under tort law.

Defendants, unrepresented at this ex-parte hearing, had no counter-arguments on record.

Court's Lens: Dissecting Disparagement in the Digital Age

Justice Gedela first dispensed procedural applications—exempting pre-institution mediation (citing Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi , 2024 SCC), allowing extra documents, waiving advance service due to concealment risks, and granting filing extensions.

Turning to merits, the court invoked San Nutrition Pvt Ltd v. Arpit Mangal (2025 SCC OnLine Del 2701) for disparagement tests: (i) untrue/misleading statements; (ii) malice; (iii) special damage. Unlike defamation (reputation-focused), this protects economic interests, with plaintiffs bearing the falsehood burden.

Drawing from Dabur India v. Colortek Meghalaya (upheld by Division Bench) and Hindustan Unilever v. Cavincare , the judge analyzed transcripts. While some parts praised design and battery, overall tones unfairly targeted AI+ and Sheth without "technical examination or comparison." No data supported claims; critiques hinged on unverified ADB pulls, privacy policy nitpicks, and founder history—tending to "bring disrepute" and discourage buys.

As Reckitt Benckiser v. Gillette India notes, genuine belief negates malice, but here untested assertions risked financial loss. Prima facie, elements held; balance of convenience favored plaintiffs.

Punchy Pronouncements: Judge's Sharp Takes

"The transcripts do not disclose as to the basis upon which such conclusions have been arrived at... other than to orally state the deficiencies... no technical examination or comparison... has actually been carried out."

"Cumulatively reading the transcripts... it indeed gives and tends to bring disrepute to the product... and also contains disparaging statements against not only the product... but also the plaintiff no.2."

"This untested and unverified analysis has the potential of causing financial loss to the plaintiffs. The essential elements required... appear to be fulfilled."

Media reports echoed: the court flagged "unfairly targeting" via videos lacking product comparison basis.

Gagged Content, Suit Advances: What Happens Next

Defendants are barred from "spreading any information amounting to disparagement" on YouTube or social media. Notice issued; replies due in four weeks. Suit registered as CS(COMM) 429/2026, summons via all modes, with tight pleading timelines.

This sets a cautionary note for tech reviewers: opinion must rest on verifiable grounds, lest it tip into actionable disparagement. For AI+, it's a shield for growth; for creators, a reminder that viral critiques carry courtroom risks in India's buzzing gadget market.