Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains TechWiser, TechBar From Disparaging AI+ Smartphones

The Delhi High Court recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of NxtQuantum Shift Technologies India Private Limited, which trades as AI+ Smartphones, and its founder, Madhav Sheth.

The order was passed on April 28, 2026. The court restrained unknown parties and the YouTube channels TechWiser and TechBar from publishing or spreading any content that amounts to disparagement of the plaintiffs on YouTube or any other social media or digital platform.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined the transcripts of the videos at the court's insistence. The court found that the statements made by the channels bordered on disparagement.

“This untested and unverified analysis has the potential of causing financial loss to the plaintiffs. The essential elements required for the Court to prima facie find disparagement appear to be fulfilled. In such circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the videos uploaded by defendant nos. 2 and 3 would be disparaging, which needs to be injuncted.,” the court held.

According to the plaintiffs, AI+ Smartphones was launched on July 8, 2025. They claim it is India's first fully sovereign smartphone brand. They state that the phones are designed, manufactured and governed entirely in India. They also state that the phones run on NxtQuantum OS and that user data is stored on MeitY-approved Google Cloud infrastructure.

The plaintiffs stated that Madhav Sheth, the company's founder and CEO, had earlier co-founded Realme in 2018. They said he led it to become India's fourth-largest smartphone brand before leaving in June 2023.

The dispute arose from two YouTube videos published in April 2026. TechWiser published a video titled “This Indian Phone Is A Marketing Disaster!” on April 9. It had over 2,59,454 views. TechBar published a video titled “FAKE Indian Company - Needs to STOP” on April 14. It had over 3,32,950 views.

The plaintiffs alleged that both videos contained false and unverified statements about the company's data security and privacy practices. They also alleged that the videos wrongly suggested that the brand misrepresented itself as Indian despite links to foreign entities. They said the videos discouraged consumers from buying AI+ Smartphones.

The court explained that commercial speech can amount to disparagement if certain conditions are met. The statement must be untrue or misleading. It must be made with malice. It must also cause damage to the plaintiff. The court also noted that, unlike defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the statements are false.

After reading the transcripts, the court found that the videos began with claims said to be based on technical reasoning. However, the transcripts did not show the basis for these conclusions.

The court noted that the speakers pointed out defects in performance, software and applications. However, there was no indication that any proper technical testing or comparison had been carried out with other phones.

“The transcripts of both the videos appear to display a fair criticism of the purported shortcomings, in the opinion of the defendant nos.2 and 3, however, appear to be unfairly targeting the plaintiff no.1 and more particularly plaintiff no.2,” the court said.

The court said that when both transcripts are read together, they tend to harm the reputation of the product. They also contain disparaging statements against both the company and its founder.

The court also pointed out the lack of technical backing. It said, “No data or any real technical examination or evaluation by any credible agency has been mentioned. The product evaluation also appears to be on the basis of the alleged background of plaintiff no.2.”

The court found that the videos could lead consumers to avoid buying the plaintiffs' products. This was based on the analysis presented by the channels.

The court held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case. It said the balance of convenience was in their favour. It also said the plaintiffs would suffer harm that could not be adequately compensated by money if the injunction was not granted.

The court therefore restrained unknown parties and the YouTube channels TechWiser and TechBar from publishing or spreading any content that amounts to disparagement of the plaintiffs on YouTube or any other social media or digital platform.

The matter is next listed before the court on October 5, 2026.