Shaadi.com’s 30-Day Money Back Guarantee Ad Blocked by Indian High Court

Introduction

The age-old adage, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," seems fitting for the recent legal tussle between Matrimony.com Ltd. and People Interactive (I) Pvt. Ltd., the parent company of Shaadi.com. In the ruling dated January 10, 2025, the Madras High Court granted an interim injunction against misleading advertisements by Shaadi.com, particularly targeting its "30-Day Money Back Guarantee" claim. This case highlights the increasing judicial scrutiny over advertising practices in India, emphasizing the need for truthful marketing claims.

The Controversial Ad Campaign

Shaadi.com, a leading matchmaking platform, launched a series of advertisements in multiple Indian languages (including Tamil, Hindi, and Marathi) promoting its 30-Day Money Back Guarantee. The advertisements featured prominent actors such as R. Madhavan and Vidya Balan, who played engaging roles in scenarios where families were urged to begin wedding preparations, reinforcing the idea that using Shaadi.com would guarantee a bride or groom within a month—or else users would get their money back.

In one version of the ad, a bride-to-be and her family are depicted making elaborate wedding preparations when someone points out that no groom has been found yet. The scene humorously cuts to Shaadi.com’s promise of a “30-Day Money Back Guarantee”, implying that their service ensures a match within this period. The ad uses emotional appeal and cultural nuances to convince viewers that finding a life partner through the platform is quick and reliable.

However, competitor Matrimony.com Ltd., the operator of BharatMatrimony, challenged these claims, alleging that they were misleading, deceptive, and exploitative, violating multiple legal provisions, including the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines unfair trade practices, the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, which prohibits misleading advertisements, and the ASCI Code, which mandates that advertisements should not mislead consumers.

The Court’s Observations

Justice RMT Teekaa Raman, presiding over the case, analyzed the discrepancies between the ad claims and the actual terms and conditions of the money-back offer. The ruling highlighted key concerns:

• Misleading Representation: The court noted that while the ad promised a money-back guarantee if a match wasn’t found, the fine print revealed stringent conditions—users had to send at least ten interest requests and receive zero acceptances to qualify for a refund.
• Unfair Trade Practice: The doctrine of caveat venditor (let the seller beware) was invoked, emphasizing that advertisers must disclose material conditions upfront rather than relying on fine print that consumers are unlikely to notice.
• Violation of ASCI Guidelines: The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) had already flagged the campaign as misleading and directed Shaadi.com to withdraw or modify the advertisement. The court held that non-compliance with ASCI’s recommendations further demonstrated the deceptive nature of the campaign.
• Public Interest Protection: Given that over 1,200 consumers had already sought refunds, the court found that the general public was being misled into believing that Shaadi.com guaranteed successful matches within 30 days.

The Verdict

The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction, barring Shaadi.com from continuing with its "30-Day Money Back Guarantee" campaign in its current form. The ruling highlights that consumer protection must take precedence over aggressive marketing tactics, especially in sensitive sectors like matrimonial services, where emotional decision-making plays a crucial role.

Key Lessons for Advertisers and Businesses

This ruling serves as a cautionary precedent for businesses and advertisers running campaigns in India. Key takeaways include:

• Transparency in Terms & Conditions: Advertisers must ensure that critical conditions are not buried in fine print. Disclosures must be made prominent, legible, and clear.
• Regulatory Compliance Matters: While ASCI’s decisions are non-statutory, courts are increasingly recognizing them as quasi-regulatory authorities, as held by the Delhi High Court in Sameer Jain v. Union of India [2]. Brands ignoring ASCI’s rulings risk legal action.
• Evolving Consumer Protection Laws: The judgment reflects a global shift toward greater consumer protection, aligning with international standards such as the FTC guidelines in the U.S.
• Legal Liability for Misleading Ads: The ruling establishes that misleading advertisements can result in injunctions, setting a precedent for stricter ad regulations in India.

Conclusion

The Shaadi.com case reinforces the principle that advertising must be truthful, fair, and free from deception. As regulators and courts tighten the noose on misleading claims, advertisers must rethink their marketing strategies. For brands operating in India, this case is a reminder that cultural and legal nuances matter. In an era where consumer trust is currency, transparency isn't just good ethics—it’s good business.

References

[1] Matrimony.com Ltd. v. People Interactive (I) Pvt. Ltd (O.A. No.389 of 2024 In C.S.No.122 of 2024)

[2] W.P.(C) No.9823 of 2017