This may not be quite so easy as it may seem, since many influencers, Bhansali included, may not have even realised what they were doing was risky.

“With the advent of the internet, the youth is exposed to content from foreign social media influencers that may be considered proper as per the laws of their country,” says Ryan Wilson, an advocate specialising in intellectual property law, adding: “When they mimic such vlogging styles in India, they do so not so much with malice, but because they think there is nothing wrong with it.”

As Wilson points out, this is not something which will exonerate them in court – which means they should look to spread awareness about this kind of tort liability beyond the legal fraternity.

But was the approach of the Bombay High Court correct? Ghosh is of the opinion that the test adopted by the court to assess whether or not Bhansali had been reckless was not entirely fair.

“It’s one thing to say ‘you have a duty to post responsible content on social media’,” he argues, “it’s quite another to say ‘you have a duty to post responsible content supported by research that can stand heavy judicial scrutiny about specific products or services on social media because their owners will bring legal action against you if you don’t.”

As Justice Kathawalla acknowledges at the start of the order, the expansion and commercialisation of the internet has led and will continue to lead to new kinds of legal disputes, which the old principles and precedents may not be sufficient to cover.

Other high courts and the Supreme Court may take a different view from the Bombay High Court in other such cases – which will surely happen with the continued rise in prominence of influencers. Till then though, it might be wise for them to read up on this order, and be aware of the responsibilities that the judiciary at this time views them to have.