Do Movie Trailers Create Binding Promises? SC Explains: Yash Raj Films

Key Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court held that promotional trailers are unilateral and do not create contractual obligations or enforceable promises, meaning that the absence of content from a promo in the actual film does not constitute an unfair trade practice or deficiency in service (paras 12-14).

Court’s View

The Court emphasized that a promotional trailer is an advertisement, intended to allure and entice potential viewers rather than constitute a binding promise regarding the content of the film. The Court further clarified that creative freedom in advertisements for films must be preserved (paras 13-19).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the consumer forums, ruling that the absence of the song “Jabra Fan” in the movie “Fan” despite its inclusion in promotional trailers does not amount to a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (paras 20-21).

Relevant Acts, Sections, Provisions, and Rules Cited

Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), and 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Appellant

The appellant, Yash Raj Films, argued that promotional trailers do not create binding contractual obligations and that the omission of a song from the film does not constitute a deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice.

Appellant Relied On

The appellant relied on the principles of contract law, asserting that advertisements generally do not constitute offers and are merely invitations to offer. They also cited the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which includes the creative liberty to design promotional content.

Case of the Respondent

The respondent, Afreen Fatima Zaidi, contended that she decided to watch the movie “Fan” based on the promotional trailer that featured the song “Jabra Fan” and felt deceived when the song was not part of the film, constituting a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

Respondent Relied On

The respondent relied on consumer protection laws, arguing that the promotional trailer created an implied promise that the song would be in the film, and its absence amounted to false representation and mental agony.

Question & Answer

Question: Does a promotional trailer create a contractual obligation for the film to include all its featured content?
Answer: No, the Supreme Court ruled that promotional trailers are unilateral advertisements and do not create contractual obligations or enforceable promises (paras 12-14).

Question: Is the omission of a promotional trailer’s content in the actual film an unfair trade practice?
Answer: No, the Court held that the omission does not constitute an unfair trade practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (para 18).

Question: What did the Supreme Court say about the relationship between advertisements and consumer expectations in this context?
Answer: The Court emphasized that advertisements, including promotional trailers, are intended to entice viewers and do not necessarily convey binding promises about the content of the film (paras 13-14).

Question: What is the significance of creative freedom in the context of film promotions, according to the Supreme Court?
Answer: The Court highlighted the importance of preserving creative freedom in advertisements for films, allowing producers the discretion to design promotional content without creating binding obligations (para 19).

Question: What was the Supreme Court’s final ruling in the Yash Raj Films vs. Afreen Fatima Zaidi case?
Answer: The Supreme Court set aside the lower consumer forum orders, ruling that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by Yash Raj Films, and allowed the appeal (paras 20-21).

Details of Case

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Aravind Kumar
Date of Order: April 22, 2024
Case Name: Yash Raj Films Private Limited vs. Afreen Fatima Zaidi & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4422/2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14475/2021)