New Delhi: Kerala High Court gives superstar Mohanlal a big relief in a shocking false ad case. The Malayalam icon, famous for his Manappuram Finance ads, faced blame from angry customers who said they got tricked by higher interest rates.
But the court says no—Mohanlal is just the face, not the culprit. Is this a win for celebs or a loophole for companies? Details inside on this dramatic verdict that frees the actor.
Court clears Mohanlal
The Kerala High Court has freed actor Mohanlal from a consumer complaint against Manappuram Finance over false ads promising low interest rates. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. ruled that Mohanlal, as brand ambassador, cannot be blamed since he did not directly push people to take the loans. The court quashed orders from lower consumer commissions that had allowed the case against him.
Case background
Complainants had pledged gold at the Catholic Syrian Bank at 15 per cent interest per year. Manappuram Finance took over the loan, promising even lower rates, drawn by Mohanlal’s TV ads. But when closing the loan, they faced higher charges than advertised, leading to claims of service deficiency and unfair trade. They sought an excess interest refund and Rs 25 lakh compensation, naming Mohanlal as a party.
Mohnalal’s Defence
Mohanlal challenged the complaint’s maintainability, saying he had no direct link to the company’s actions. Lower courts used the Consumer Protection Act’s ‘endorsement’ definition to keep him in the case, but the State Commission dodged a clear ruling. He filed a writ petition (WP(C) No. 31700 of 2024: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.) in the High Court.
Key legal ruling
The court checked Act definitions and noted ‘endorser’ liability only under Section 21 for false ads, with a Rs 10 lakh penalty option if no due diligence. Justice Rahman stated: “Going by the statutory stipulations in Section 21… liabilities contemplated upon the endorser are in respect of the proceedings envisaged under Section 21 alone.” He added: “Liability… can be imposed upon an endorser, only in a case in which a direct link has been established between the person who is availing the service and the persons who are impleaded as the opposite parties.”
No direct link found
The complaint mentioned Mohanlal just twice—as ambassador and in the manager’s promise tying rates to his ads—which showed no personal connection. Justice Rahman remarked: “As long as the actor was only the brand ambassador… and did not, in any manner, persuade to avail their services, liability cannot be fastened against him.” Complainants can still use Section 21 against the company. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18. Counsel: B.S. Suresh Kumar, George Sebastian for petitioner; others for respondents.