Introduction
In Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Afreen Fatima Zaidi & Anr. (2024 Latest Caselaw 261 SC), the Supreme Court held that a promotional trailer or teaser of a film does not create any contractual obligation between the producer and the viewer. The Court further ruled that the omission of a song featured in the trailer from the final movie does not constitute either deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Facts of the Case
The respondent watched the promotional trailer of the film Fan, which featured the popular song "Jabra Fan". Expecting the song to appear in the film, she purchased tickets for herself and her family. However, the song was not included in the movie shown in theatres. Claiming that she had been deceived and had suffered mental agony, the respondent filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation. While the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint, the State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that the producer had committed deficiency in service and adopted an unfair trade practice by excluding the song from the film after featuring it in the promotional trailer. Yash Raj Films challenged these findings before the Supreme Court.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
The principal issues were whether a promotional movie trailer creates a contractual obligation requiring every scene or song shown in the trailer to appear in the final film, and whether omission of such content amounts to deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Supreme Court's Findings
The Supreme Court held that the findings of the consumer fora could not be sustained. The Court observed that:
•A promotional trailer is merely an advertisement intended to promote a film and generate public interest.
•A trailer is not an "offer" under the law of contracts and therefore cannot create a contractual relationship or enforceable promise between the producer and the viewer.
•The contract between a cinema and a viewer arises only when a ticket is purchased, entitling the viewer to watch the film and not to insist upon inclusion of every promotional element.
•The complainant's expectation that the song would appear in the movie was based on her own assumption and not on any legal promise made by the producer.
•An unfair trade practice requires a false or misleading representation of a material fact. Merely excluding a song shown in the promotional trailer does not amount to a false representation or deception.
•Films and promotional material involve artistic and creative expression, and courts must recognise the creative discretion available to filmmakers while assessing consumer complaints. Accordingly, the Court held that neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice was established.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court:
•Allowed the appeal filed by Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd.
•Set aside the orders of the State Commission and the NCDRC.
•Held that the producer was not liable for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
•Dismissed the consumer complaint.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment clarifies that promotional movie trailers are advertisements intended to generate interest and do not create contractual obligations regarding the content of the final film. It also explains that consumer claims based on artistic expectations cannot succeed unless there is a material false representation or deceptive practice. The decision provides important guidance on the intersection of consumer protection law, contract law and artistic freedom in the entertainment industry.
