Big corporations have significant resources at their disposal, including a team of lawyers, public relations experts, and massive financial reserves. 

Hence it can be a daunting task for a commoner/individual who wants to challenge a corporation or speak out against their product, goods, services or practices, especially if they do not have the funds, the time or the influence to take on a big corporation in a legal battle.

The example that fits here perfectly is that of the influencer Revant Himatsingka, who claimed that Bournvita has sugar, cocoa solids and cancer-causing colourant.

The influencer has since deleted the video after being served a legal notice by the company. By then, it had already been widely circulated on the social media platform.

Mondelez India-owned health drink brand Bournvita has since then rejected the claims of a social media influencer of the health drink having high sugar content and termed the video posted by him as “unscientific”, which “distorted facts and made false and negative inferences”.

However, the fact is that it is not just Revant Himatsingka who has made such claims; refer to research done by FoodNetIndia, and the same is also highlighted on the website!

Big Corporations And The Right To Sue!

One of the primary ways that corporations silence common people is through the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). 

What is a SLAPP?

SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

SLAPPs: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. 

These damaging suits stifle free speech and a healthy debate by targeting those who may articulate with their government or speak up on issues that are of public interest.

SLAPPs are used to silence and harass critics by compelling them to spend money to defend these baseless suits. SLAPP filers don’t go to court to seek justice. Instead, SLAPP’s intention is to intimidate those who disagree with them or their activities by draining the target’s financial resources.

SLAPPs are effective because even a meritless lawsuit can take years and many thousands of dollars to defend. To end or prevent a SLAPP, those who speak out on issues of public interest frequently agree to muzzle themselves, apologize, or “correct” statements.

Hence, these are lawsuits that are intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence. SLAPPs can take many forms, including defamation lawsuits, nuisance lawsuits, and copyright infringement lawsuits. The goal of a SLAPP is not necessarily to win the case but to harass, intimidate, and financially exhaust the individual or group that is being targeted.

This is precisely what happened in the case; the influencer openly admitted to not having the time or the resources to fight against the company, Mondelez India and instead preferred to apologize and take the video down!

NDAs

Another way that corporations may silence common people is through the use of NDAs, and non-disclosure agreements. These agreements can be included in employment contracts, severance agreements, or other legal documents. 

NDAs prevent individuals from disclosing information about the company or its practices, including information about wrongdoing or misconduct. If an individual violates the NDA, the company can sue for damages and seek injunctive relief to prevent further disclosure.

The use of NDAs can be particularly effective in silencing individuals who may not have the financial resources to defend themselves in a legal battle. They may also be reluctant to come forward because of the risk of damaging their reputation or future job prospects.

Reaching Out To Media

In addition to SLAPPs and NDAs, corporations may also use their significant financial resources to influence the media or public opinion. They may hire public relations firms or use social media to shape the narrative around a particular issue or to discredit critics.

The result of these tactics is that many individuals may be deterred from speaking out against corporations or challenging their practices. This can have a chilling effect on free speech and can prevent important issues from coming to light.

Whistleblowers Are Important!

Whistleblowers play an essential role in exposing corporate misconduct and wrongdoing. They are individuals who speak out against illegal or unethical practices within their organization, often at great personal risk. Unfortunately, throughout the years, big corporations have often attempted to silence whistleblowers by threatening them with lawsuits.

One of the primary ways that corporations use lawsuits to silence whistleblowers is by claiming that the whistleblower has violated a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or a confidentiality agreement. 

As mentioned earlier on in the article – NDAs are legal contracts that prevent employees from disclosing information about their employer’s business practices, often including any misconduct or wrongdoing. 

These agreements may be signed when an employee starts their job or as a condition of receiving a severance package when leaving the company.

If a whistleblower violates their NDA by speaking out, the company may threaten legal action, arguing that the disclosure breaches the agreement and causes harm to the company’s reputation or financial interests.

How Does The Threat Of Lawsuit Work?

The threat of a lawsuit can be enough to deter potential whistleblowers from coming forward, even if they have evidence of serious wrongdoing.

Another way that corporations silence whistleblowers is by using defamation lawsuits. 

Defamation occurs when someone makes a false statement that harms another person’s reputation. If a whistleblower makes an allegation against their employer that turns out to be untrue, the company may sue for defamation. 

Even if the whistleblower’s allegations are true, a lawsuit can be expensive and time-consuming, potentially bankrupting the whistleblower and preventing them from speaking out further.

In some cases, corporations may also use the legal system to intimidate whistleblowers by filing lawsuits against them for alleged violations of trade secrets or intellectual property rights. These types of lawsuits can be particularly damaging, as they often carry significant penalties and may lead to criminal charges.

Laws Protecting Whistleblowers In Other Countries

In recent years, some countries have introduced whistleblower protection laws to prevent these types of lawsuits and other forms of retaliation against whistleblowers. These laws typically provide legal protection to whistleblowers who report wrongdoing within their organization, including protection against retaliation and legal action.

Despite these legal protections, however, corporations still find ways to silence whistleblowers. As such, it is essential to support and protect whistleblowers, as they play a crucial role in holding corporations accountable and ensuring that they act in the public interest.

To address this issue, some jurisdictions have introduced anti-SLAPP laws that provide legal protections to individuals who speak out against corporations or government entities. These laws allow individuals to quickly dismiss frivolous lawsuits and can provide legal remedies for individuals who have been subjected to SLAPPs.

What Have We Learnt From Bournvitta’s Case?

Ultimately, it is essential to ensure that individuals have the right to speak out against corporations without fear of legal retaliation or financial ruin. 

This requires a combination of legal protections, media scrutiny, and public support for individuals who are willing to take a stand against corporate wrongdoing.