“I found the course disappointing.” “The course had no live classes.” “The creator took the money and planned to disappear.” These statements may appear in the same review, but they say different things. One is an opinion, one is a claim that can be checked, and one alleges a person’s intention.
For creators, being clear about that difference makes commentary more useful to viewers and reduces the risk of an unsupported allegation.
What is a fact, and what is an opinion?
A factual claim describes something that can usually be checked against evidence: “The webinar started 40 minutes late” or “The product label says it contains 25 grams of protein.”
An opinion is your assessment: “The webinar was poorly organised” or “I did not think the product was worth the price.”
Opinions are often based on facts. If you tell viewers why you reached your view, they can understand and assess it for themselves: “The webinar started 40 minutes late, so I found it poorly organised.”
Why does the distinction matter legally?
Indian defamation law protects reputation while allowing room for criticism. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) includes exceptions for certain opinions expressed in good faith, including opinions about a performance that its author has put before the public. In a civil defamation case involving a creator’s product-review videos, the Delhi High Court also distinguished honest comment from factual claims and examined whether the comment had a sufficient factual basis.
That does not mean every statement labelled “my opinion” is protected. “In my opinion, this brand forged its test report” still communicates an allegation of forgery. A viewer will not necessarily treat it as a matter of taste simply because you added those three words.
How can you make criticism clear without weakening it?
Show the fact, then give your view.
Suppose a brand agreed to pay you within 30 days, but 45 days have passed and it has not paid. You can explain the agreed deadline, the amount due and what happened when you followed up. You can then say that you found the delay unacceptable.
That is more precise than calling the brand “a scam.” Non-payment may be a serious contractual issue, but the delay alone does not establish that the brand intended to deceive you from the start.
The same approach works for product reviews. If you relied on a test, identify what was tested, by whom and what the result actually showed. Do not turn one result into a claim about every batch or every product the company sells.
What about “allegedly,” questions and sarcasm?
They are not automatic safeguards. “Did this business steal from its customers?” can still lead viewers towards an accusation, particularly if the thumbnail says “EXPOSED” and the video treats the answer as settled. Sarcasm can also imply a factual claim.
Read your whole post as a viewer would: title, thumbnail, footage, voice-over and caption together. Ask what conclusion a reasonable viewer is likely to take away, not just whether one sentence is technically phrased as a question.
Can you discuss a claim that has not yet been proved?
Yes, but identify its status accurately. If a customer has made a complaint, say that a complaint was made. If a court has not decided the issue, do not say the person was found guilty. Attribute the claim, check the original material and include important context or a response where available.
Attribution matters, but it does not replace checking. Repeating someone else’s allegation to a larger audience can cause harm even if you say, “I’m just sharing what I heard.”
Before you post: a practical check
- Mark each sentence: Is it something I can verify, an allegation by someone else, or my own assessment?
- Check the evidence: Does it support the exact claim I am making?
- Explain the basis for my view: Have I given viewers enough context to understand my criticism?
- Avoid guessing motives: Can I describe the conduct without claiming to know what someone intended?
- Review the full impression: Do the headline, edit and caption say more than the evidence supports?
The simple rule: State what you know, identify what remains an allegation, and make clear where your opinion begins.
Sources and further reading
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, section 356 — the criminal-defamation provision and its exceptions, including good-faith opinions on public performances.
- Delhi High Court, San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal and Others, 28 April 2025 — a creator-review dispute discussing factual basis, truth and fair comment. The court’s assessment of the videos was at an interim stage.
- Supreme Court, Jaideep Bose v. M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, 18 February 2025 — further reading on assessing allegedly defamatory reporting in context. The case concerned the earlier IPC provisions.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information for creators in India. Whether a particular post is defamatory depends on its full wording, context and evidence. For a proposed allegation or a legal notice, speak with an independent legal professional.