Defer Online Film Reviews For 48 Hours After Release : Amicus Curiae Tells Kerala High Court

The Amicus Curiae in a matter relating to "review bombing" of films has told the Kerala High Court the need for guidelines to govern movie reviews of social media influencers on online platforms which can not only protect the integrity of the filmmaking process but also safeguard the interests of the audience. The report suggested measures including a 48 hour waiting period for reviews following the release of movies, and maintaining a respectful tone for such reviews.

Justice Devan Ramachandran appointed the amicus curiae in a plea filed by the director of 'Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam', seeking a gag order to ensure that social media influencers and film reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of the film for at least 7 days following its release, and another by the Producers' Association highlighting "review bombings" against newly released films.

When the matter had come up before the Kerala High Court, it was of the considered view that the case projected a 'serious issue' and it appointed Advocate Syam Padman as the Amicus Curiae.

The Amicus Curiae in his report highlighted the ways in which individuals can review bomb certain projects such as through fake profile reviews, fraudulent consumer reviews on platforms such as BookMyShow, IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes and even paid negative reviews.

The report pointed out the various statutes and redressal mechanism available including provisions under the Indian Penal Code, the IT Act and the Copyright Act. Under the Indian Penal Code, Sections 415 (cheating, applicable to fake profiles), Section 383 (unlawfully obtaining money, applicable to individuals attempting to extort money under threat of negative reviews), Section 503 (criminal intimidation), Section 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation, applicable to individuals issuing threats against actors, filmmakers etc.) and finally, Section 389 (extortion).

Under the Information Technology Act, Sections 66D, 66C and 67 deals with punishment for impersonation using computers, identity theft and publishing obscene material respectively. Section 63 under the Copyright Act prohibits the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or public display of copyrighted works, it states.

Aside from this, it states that a private complaint for defamation under Section 499 and complaints to intermediaries are also available avenues to address issues of review bombing. Intermediaries are required to take action in such cases under the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021.

As part of the proposed measures to curb review bombing, solutions provided in the report included the constitution of a portal by the cyber cell to receive complaints related to review bombing which can be used to address concerns by industry professionals.

Such a decentralized approach can also facilitate a more localized and tailored response to occurrences of review bombing, especially during the 'golden hour' period during which immediate action is essential to address the sudden influx of reviews. Additionally, mandatory compliance with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) framework by all review sites can filter out biases and restrict fraudulent reviews, it is submitted.

The report explained the role of the influencers within the current framework, highlighting the ways in which film marketing departments often leverage social media platforms and utilize these influencers to generate interest around their films. The report also pointed out the many ways in which social media influencers can impact the industry, including undermining the work of the directors and actors and tarnishing their credibility. The report adds that this can impact their future projects and collaborations, as well as their ability to attract investors and secure distribution deals.

“Their influence amongst the ordinary public is such that if they give positive reviews for low budget films with no particular star cast, then the chance for these movies to remain in the theatre and do business for the producer increases. On the other hand, if they give negative reviews for these kinds of films, there are high chances for these movies to be out of the theatre after the very first day itself. Irrespective of the scale and budget of the movies, these influencers can easily affect the decision of a common man to watch the movie in theatre or not, directly impacting the commercial interest of the movie” states the report.

The Amicus Curiae submitted that instead of fostering constructive criticism and meaningful discourse, the disrespectful tone of the social media influencers perpetuates a cycle of cynicism and hostility resulting in a challenging environment for filmmakers and studios, discouraging creativity and innovation in storytelling. In doing so, it distinguished between contemporary reviewers and reviewers from the previous generations who were part of institutions such as the Film Critics Guild and as such, adhered to certain standards of professionalism.

The report also pointed out that while freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is applicable to social media influencers, there is a significant concern regarding the manner in which these influencers convey their subjective reactions to the films.

The Amicus Curiae also emphasized on the need for regulation of reviews by social media influencers, pointing out that issues such as review bombing can have devastating consequences for the industry. The report points out that the issue is exacerbated by the fact that these social media influencers have no institutional mechanisms and oversight that governs traditional media outlets. It points out the difficult of holding individual influencers accountable for their actions without standardized protocols or hierarchical structures in place.

It referred to the 'Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022' notified by the Central Consumer Protection Authority, which protected consumers from unsubstantiated claims of social medial influencers.

The report concluded that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting should be tasked with crafting guidelines to govern movie reviews of social media influencers on online platforms which can not only protect the integrity of the filmmaking process but also safeguard the interests of the audience. As part of this, the suggested measures proposed include a 48 hour waiting period for reviews, prioritizing constructive criticism, complying with the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, as issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority and maintain a tone that is respectful and avoids spoilers.

Case Title: Mubeen Rauf v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 32733 OF 2023