Madras HC restrains Shaadi.com's ad over "30-day money back guarantee" misleading claims

The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained Shaadi.com from airing its widely publicized advertisement that guarantees users a bride or groom within 30 days or offers a money-back guarantee on the user fee, as per media reports.

The court observed that the claim was misleading and amounted to unfair trade practices.

Justice RMT Teekaa Raman passed the interim injunction order while allowing an application filed by Matrimony.com Limited, which operates BharatMatrimony.com, seeking to block the airing of Shaadi.com's advertisement.

The court noted that Shaadi.com had violated the Code for Self-regulation of Advertising Content in India by employing misleading claims. "This Court finds that the respondent by employing a misleading advertisement with falsehood has contravened the Code for Self-regulation of Advertising Content in India and indulged in unfair trade practice and he has made a false assertion that utilizing their service comes with a guarantee that the user will find a bride/bridegroom within a period of thirty days and also made a false assertion that the user shall be guaranteed money back in the event they fail to secure a bride/bridegroom," the judge said in the report.

Further, the court observed that the advertisement was in contravention of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and posed a significant risk of misleading the public. "The 'money-back guarantee' advertisement appears to be highly misleading and deceptive, and the general public, in all probability, will fall prey to it," Justice Teekaa Raman remarked.

"In the larger interest of the general public, since a prima facie case has been made out, this Court is inclined to allow this application and grant an ad interim injunction as prayed for," the order read.

Matrimony.com had argued that Shaadi.com was using dishonest and deceitful advertising tactics to promote its services across broadcasting and online platforms.

However, Shaadi.com defended itself, claiming that the lawsuit was a result of business rivalry and an attempt to undermine its market position.