Published Mar 23, 2026 | 12:13 PM ⚊ Updated Mar 23, 2026 | 2:01 PM
Dr Sivaranjani has been raising concerns about ORSL for 8 years. Credit: iStock, x.com/dr_sivaranjani
Synopsis: Johnson & Johnson’s Kenvue arm has issued a legal notice to Hyderabad paediatrician Dr Sivaranjani Santosh over her social media criticism of its electrolyte drinks ORSL and ERZL. The company alleges defamation and misinformation about sucralose, while Dr Santosh defends her free speech and public health duty.
Johnson & Johnson’s consumer health arm under the Kenvue group has sent a legal notice to Hyderabad-based paediatrician Dr Sivaranjani Santosh over her social media posts questioning its electrolyte drink products, ORSL and its rebranded version ERZL.
The notice, dated 16 March, 2026 and issued through law firm Lall & Sethi, asks the doctor to take down her posts and reels within seven days and refrain from commenting on the company’s products in future.
The dispute brings into focus a larger debate over product labelling, artificial sweeteners, and the role of doctors in public health communication.
Dr Santosh, a practising paediatrician, has been raising concerns about ORSL for nearly eight years, arguing that it was being sold alongside Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS) despite not meeting the World Health Organization’s recommended formulation.
ORS is a therapeutic formulation used to treat dehydration due to diarrhoea and contains specific concentrations of glucose and electrolytes. According to Dr Santosh, ORSL had higher sugar levels and lower electrolyte content, while its name closely resembled “ORS”, potentially confusing caregivers.
In October 2025, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) directed that no product could use the term “ORS” unless it complied with WHO standards.
JNTL Consumer Health (India) Pvt. Ltd., a Kenvue group company and licensee of Johnson & Johnson, challenged the order in the Delhi High Court. However, in its November 12, 2025 order, the court observed that the product was “not adulterated or unsafe for use” and that the issue was “strictly regarding branding”. The company later withdrew its petition.
How dare you send me a notice @jnjhealthequity @kenvue that I am maligning the names of ORSL and ERZL for my own commercial benefits and for increasing the number of followers for my page, and that you will drag me to the court?!
My stance is predated and vindicated by the FSSAI… pic.twitter.com/kEdjsaqobi— Dr.Sivaranjini (@dr_sivaranjani) March 22, 2026
Following the regulatory action, the company discontinued the ORSL branding for its electrolyte drink and introduced ERZL around November 2025.
According to the company, ERZL is not a therapeutic ORS product but an electrolyte beverage with a reformulated composition containing “87% less sugar” than its predecessor.
It also stated that old ORSL stock was re-labelled with ERZL stickers and recalled from distribution channels.
The notice accuses Dr Santosh of making “false, misleading and defamatory” claims, particularly regarding the presence of sucralose in ERZL.
It states that she had claimed sucralose could worsen gut inflammation, disrupt microbiome balance, and increase risks of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and that it should not be consumed by children under two.
Calling these claims incorrect, the notice says: “Being a doctor of repute, you must be aware that your remarks and claims are based on not only incorrect and incomplete understanding… but also contrary to drug regulatory ecosystem.”
It maintains that sucralose is an approved sweetener under Indian and global regulatory frameworks, including FSSAI and the Indian Pharmacopoeia, and cites a February 2026 review by the European Food Safety Authority reaffirming its safety.
The notice further alleges that Dr Santosh is “spreading unscientific myths” and “deliberately running a malicious and unscientific campaign.”
The company also disputes her claim that ORSL products continue to be sold or that ERZL is being passed off as ORS.
It states such claims are “baseless and malicious” and adds: “The new brand name ERZL does not contain the term ‘ORS’ and it is beyond reasonable comprehension how the same can be confused with WHO ORS.”
The notice objects to Dr Santosh’s call for a boycott of Kenvue brands, including Johnson’s Baby, Aveeno, Neutrogena, Clean & Clear, Listerine and Zyrtec.
It describes the call as “trade libel” and accuses her of attempting to damage the company’s reputation and business. It also alleges that her posts were made for “monetary gain” and involved misuse of the company’s intellectual property.
Dr Santosh has refused to comply with the notice and has issued a detailed rebuttal along with a video statement.
Defending her actions, she said: “A practising paediatrician… is exercising her professional duty and constitutional right to free speech on a matter of public health.”
Responding to the claim that she lacks regulatory expertise, she said: “A law firm telling a practicing paediatrician that she lacks the expertise to comment… is condescending and irrelevant.”
On the regulatory developments, she argued: “FSSAI’s October 2025 orders confirm the regulatory concern that the original ORSL branding was misleading.”
Addressing the court’s observation that the product was not unsafe, she added: “My criticism was about the misbranding and not that the liquid inside was adulterated.”
On the scientific debate, Dr Santosh cited WHO’s 2023 guideline on non-sugar sweeteners, stating: “Citing it is not ‘unscientific’… Science involves ongoing debate.”
She accused the company of selectively citing regulatory approvals while ignoring concerns flagged in global research.
She also questioned the rebranding process: “The re-stickering process… is itself a ground-level consumer confusion issue that a healthcare professional is entitled to document.”
In her video statement, she said: “They are now likely to believe that ERZL is ORS… And you are going to drag me to court for fighting for public health?”
Calling the notice an attempt to silence her, she said: “The demands… amount to prior restraint of speech… The notice should be recognized for what it is — a corporate attempt to silence a health care professional.”
She also rejected allegations of commercial motive as “outrageous”.
The notice states that the company is open to resolving the matter without litigation if the posts are taken down.
At the time of publication, Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue had not issued any separate public statement.
