UAE court: Consumers can film violations and report them

A consumer who filmed insects inside a supermarket product and sent the footage to the relevant authorities was later prosecuted for defamation after the supermarket filed a complaint against him over the recording.

The case ultimately reached the UAE’s Federal Supreme Court, which overturned his conviction and established an important judicial principle: documenting suspected violations and submitting them to the competent authorities does not constitute a crime in itself, unless there is evidence of bad faith or an intention to harm or defame others.

The ruling provides greater clarity on the legal boundaries between reporting violations in the public interest and unlawfully damaging the reputation of individuals or businesses.

Consumer became defendant According to court records, the consumer discovered insects inside a product displayed for sale at a supermarket. Believing he was acting responsibly and helping protect other consumers, he recorded a video of the product on his mobile phone and sent it to the relevant authorities for investigation. Instead of remaining the complainant, however, he found himself facing criminal proceedings after the supermarket management filed a case against him because he had filmed the product. The Court of First Instance acquitted the consumer of the charge. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling, fined him Dh3,000 and ordered the confiscation of the mobile phone used to record the footage. The dispute was later brought before the Federal Supreme Court.

Supreme Court focuses on intent In its judgment, the Federal Supreme Court examined the purpose behind the recording rather than the act of filming itself. The court ruled that merely recording a video is not sufficient to establish a criminal offence. Rather, prosecutors must prove criminal intent, including bad faith or a deliberate intention to harm another party or damage its reputation. The court found that the consumer had recorded the footage because he believed he had identified a violation that should be reported to the competent authorities. There was no evidence that he intended to defame the supermarket or tarnish its reputation. Accordingly, the court ruled that the essential criminal intent required for a conviction was absent and acquitted the defendant.

Landmark legal principle Commenting on the judgment, legal consultant and lawyer Mohammed Ali Al Hammadi said the significance of the ruling extends beyond the acquittal of the consumer.

“The importance of this judgment lies in the principle established by the Federal Supreme Court,” Al Hammadi said. “It confirms that consumers have the right to document violations they observe and report them to the competent authorities, provided this is done in good faith and within the limits necessary for filing a complaint.” He said the ruling draws a clear line between recording evidence for the purpose of reporting a suspected violation and filming with the intention of defaming or harming others.

“The act of holding a phone and documenting a violation does not automatically amount to a crime,” he said. “What matters is the intention behind the recording, the purpose for which the footage is used and the entity to which it is sent.” Reporting authorities not a crime Al Hammadi said consumers who encounter products they believe may be unfit for consumption, or who witness violations affecting public health, safety or consumer rights, may document the incident and submit the evidence to the relevant authorities for verification.

He stressed that this is fundamentally different from publishing footage on social media platforms or circulating it among others with the intention of causing harm or damaging a business’s reputation. “The phone may serve as a tool to prove a violation and protect a legal right, but it can also become a tool used to commit an offence,” he said. “The difference between the two situations lies in the intention behind the recording, the purpose of filming and how the material is used afterwards.” Message to consumers Al Hammadi said the judgment sends an important message to consumers about both their rights and their legal responsibilities. He noted that UAE laws distinguish between providing photographs or videos to a competent authority as evidence of a suspected violation and using the same material to harm an individual or business or damage their reputation. He added that violations of privacy or publishing material with the intention of causing harm may still expose individuals to legal liability.

According to Al Hammadi, the Federal Supreme Court’s ruling gives consumers a clearer understanding of the limits of their right to document violations and reinforces that good faith and intention remain central considerations when courts assess such cases. He said consumers should always consider three key factors before recording and sharing evidence of a suspected violation: the intention behind filming, the purpose for which the footage will be used and the authority to which it will be submitted. .Ajman court overturns Dh500,000 fines in Snapchat sexual messages case.