Kerala High Court Clears Mohanlal in Manappuram Finance Case, Says Brand Ambassadors Not Liable Without Direct Link

Kerala High Court Clears Mohanlal in Manappuram Finance Case, Says Brand Ambassadors Not Liable Without Direct Link

Court Says Endorsers Cannot Be Punished for Company’s Actions

Ruling Highlights Limits of Celebrity Liability Under Consumer Protection Act

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: January 10, 2026:

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has absolved Malayalam superstar Mohanlal from liability in a consumer case filed against Manappuram Finance Ltd. The case arose after borrowers alleged that the company charged higher interest rates than those advertised in campaigns featuring Mohanlal. The court held that mere endorsement in advertisements does not make a celebrity liable for consumer grievances, unless there is evidence of direct involvement in the disputed transaction.

Also Read: ITAT Remands Section 69A Case: AO Faulted for Not Verifying Donors’ Creditworthiness

Background of the Case

• Manappuram Finance, a leading non-banking financial company (NBFC), ran advertisements promoting gold loans at 12% interest rates, with Mohanlal as its brand ambassador.
• Two borrowers claimed they were persuaded by these ads to transfer their loans to Manappuram Finance.
• Later, when they tried to close their loans, they were allegedly charged higher interest rates than advertised.
• The borrowers filed a complaint against both the company and Mohanlal, accusing them of misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices.
• The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission initially admitted the complaint, but Mohanlal challenged it in the High Court.

Court’s Observations

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. made several key points in his ruling:

• Endorsers are not automatically liable for consumer grievances unless they are directly linked to the disputed transaction.
• The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, limits endorser liability mainly to Section 21, which deals with misleading advertisements.
• Liability cannot be imposed for unfair trade practices or deficiency of service unless the celebrity personally persuaded consumers.
• The court emphasized that Mohanlal’s role was limited to appearing in advertisements, and there was no evidence he influenced the borrowers directly.

Also Read: Supreme Court Clarifies Guarantee Law in UV Asset v. Electrosteel Castings: Promoter Undertaking Not a Guarantee

Legal Significance

• The ruling clarifies the scope of celebrity liability under the Consumer Protection Act.
• It distinguishes between misleading advertisements (where endorsers may face penalties) and company practices (where liability rests with the business).
• The judgment protects celebrities from being dragged into consumer disputes without evidence of direct involvement.
• It also reinforces the principle that companies must be held accountable for their own trade practices.

Impact of the Ruling

• For Celebrities: The judgment provides relief to brand ambassadors, ensuring they are not unfairly penalized for company actions.
• For Consumers: It highlights the need to pursue complaints against the actual service providers, not endorsers.
• For Companies: The ruling underscores the importance of truthful advertising and compliance with consumer laws.
• For Law: It sets a precedent for future cases involving celebrity endorsements and consumer disputes.

Timeline of Events

Why This Matters

Also Read: Supreme Court Calls for ‘Romeo-Juliet Clause’ in POCSO Act to Protect Consensual Teen Relationships

• Celebrity Endorsements: The ruling clarifies that stars are not liable for company misconduct unless they directly mislead consumers.
• Consumer Protection: Ensures that complaints are directed at the right parties—the companies providing services.
• Advertising Standards: Reinforces the need for accurate and transparent marketing.
• Legal Precedent: Strengthens judicial clarity on endorser liability in India.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s decision to absolve Mohanlal in the Manappuram Finance consumer case is a landmark ruling that defines the boundaries of celebrity liability. By emphasizing that endorsement alone does not create responsibility, the court has protected the rights of brand ambassadors while ensuring that companies remain accountable for their practices. The judgment sends a clear message: celebrities are the face of advertisements, not the guarantors of corporate conduct.

Suggested Keywords for Faster Searches

• Kerala High Court Mohanlal Manappuram case
• Mohanlal brand ambassador liability ruling
• Manappuram Finance consumer complaint
• Celebrity endorsement liability India
• Consumer Protection Act Section 21
• Mohanlal gold loan advertisement case
• Kerala HC celebrity endorsement judgment
• Brand ambassador consumer case India
• Mohanlal Manappuram Finance court ruling
• Endorser liability consumer law India

Also Read: Bombay High Court Rules Karta Personally Liable if HUF Property Fails to Cover Arbitral Award