Celebrity Endorsements And The Grey Area Of Responsibility

Most Hindi speakers have grown up watching an old man grinning toothily from the TV as a chorus of women sing “Asli masale sach sach!” (“Real masalas, it’s true!”). 

Many of them would also have learned to do yoga or pranayam from Baba Ramdev – the face of Patanjali Ayurved – on TV channels such as Aastha TV or Sanskaar TV. Legacy brands like MDH, Everest, and Patanjali have been advertising themselves for years (or decades) as the true face of Indian taste, health, and values. 

Turns out all that might just be a myth. 

Spices made by Everest and MDH were banned in Hong Kong and Singapore after their authorities found unacceptable amounts of ethylene oxide, a sterilisation agent known to cause cancer with long-term exposure. Patanjali’s founder Acharya Balkrishna and celebrity face Ramdev have been apologising profusely before the Supreme Court for contempt of court. The company also published how sorry they were in the papers twice, the second time after the court ordered them to make the apologies as large as their misleading ads were. 

Balkrishna and Ramdev are fighting allegations of defaming the Indian Medical Association, vaccines, and modern medicine while advertising Coronil, their purported cure for Covid-19, which has no evidence to back it up. 

While hearing this case last week, Supreme Court justices Himani Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that a brand and an endorser should be held equally responsible for airing a misleading or false advertisement. 

Now, MDH’s endorser is the (now deceased) founder of the brand, Dharampal Gulati, the kindly old man synonymous with its catchy jingle. Patanjali’s face is a TV yoga maverick who doesn’t legally own any stake in his own company. But hundreds of ads air everyday featuring actors, sports legends, and social media personalities. 

Those are just the standard ad films. Millions of more ads run as Facebook posts, YouTube video callouts, Instagram stories, and much more. All of this begs the question: how much can we (reasonably) hold a celebrity responsible for the brands they endorse?

Legal Landscape

First: what does Indian law say about a celebrity’s legal responsibility before endorsing a product? 

According to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (pdf), India’s central consumer protection authority (CCPA) can fine an ‘endorser’ up to Rs 10 lakh (for the first offence) or up to Rs 50 lakh (for subsequent offences) or prohibit them for up to a year from publicly endorsing any other product. 

Three years later, the CCPA released an additional set of guidelines (pdf) for brands and those who endorse them on how to prevent misleading and false advertising. It has two important prescriptions for celebrities endorsing a product or service:

1. They must clearly disclose any conflict of interest or relationship with the brand that might “materially affect the value or credibility of the endorsement”

2. They must make the endorsement after actually using the product for an adequate period of time and express a “genuine, reasonably current opinion” of it 

In practice, however, this is not how most celebrity endorsements work. And given the way top or A-list celebrities manage their endorsements, it is probably not possible for them to strictly follow these guidelines. 

“Celebrities usually sign a contract with warranties in place ensuring that the brand has conducted all required tests, obtained all the necessary regulatory approvals and clearances, and is making only truthful, accurate claims,”  says Rachna Chandiramani, founder of advisory firm Thriverse, which helps brands crack celebrity partnerships. “Unless you are involved with a brand as a founder or investor, you are not likely to get involved in very specific details of processes like product development or certifications.” 

For instance, actress Deepika Padukone is the co-founder and celebrity face of skincare brand 82°E, while several other celebrities, including actors (Anushka Sharma, Shilpa Shetty, Katrina Kaif) and sports stars (Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Sachin Tendulkar) are investors in startup brands that they also endorse. Here, the expectation is that as co-owners of the brand, they are personally responsible for the claims it makes. 

That may not be the case for actors Amitabh Bachchan and Shahrukh Khan while endorsing masalas (both endorsed Everest) or cement (Bachchan once endorsed Binani, while Khan is the new face of UltraTech). 

Chandiramani explains that A-list celebrities are often involved with dozens of different brands across categories. “An Amitabh Bachchan or a Ranveer Singh or a Virat Kohli are endorsing anywhere between 35-45 different brands. Most of them will be legacy brands with pedigree, but at best the celebrity can do basic due diligence.” Most celebrities will run through the final ad with a fine-toothed comb, asking questions and insisting on changes if they worry about a claim or visual representation made in it. 

But the stars need not struggle. In March 2022, the Advertising Standards Council of India launched a service called ‘Endorser Due Diligence’. For Rs 75,000, a celebrity endorsing a brand can request a non-technical analysis of a brand’s advertisement (a technical one costs Rs 1,90,000) run by ASCI’s panel of experts, including doctors, nutritionists, and lawyers. A representative of ASCI told The Impression that it did not have immediately available data on how many users had availed the service since its launch. 

No Big Deal

One can argue that such detailed due diligence isn’t strictly necessary. After all, CCPA’s document from 2022 contains only guidelines, not legally enforceable rules. However, in its arguments in the Patanjali case last week, the Supreme Court alluded to the guidelines and observed that the country needed a transparent complaint system for consumers affected by misleading ads. 

CCPA’s prescriptions are not new. The ASCI has had guidelines for celebrity endorsements since 2017, CEO and Secretary-General Manisha Kapoor told The Impression. “ASCI’s August 2023 update expanded the definition of celebrities to include influencers with over five lakh followers or over Rs 40 lakh in annual income, ensuring relevance in the evolving advertising landscape,” she said in email responses to a questionnaire. 

Yet, without legal enforcement, what good are guidelines? Already, celebrities are overwrought with ad films, social media endorsements, startup investments, even public appearances in sponsored clothing and accessories (what other purpose do ‘airport looks’ serve?). One suggestion the CCPA made in December last year was to “name and shame” brands who repeatedly run misleading ads by publishing a list of such repeat offenders. 

Once again, ASCI has already been doing this for years by not just naming brands, but also (for social media campaigns) the influencers involved in the violation. ASCI hands this list over to the CCPA periodically, Kapoor said. “Those who are concerned about their reputation usually would respond well to requests for voluntary compliance or lists which are more persuasive rather than legal in nature.” 

How effective has this system been so far? There are 265 non-compliant advertisers listed on ASCI’s website for various violations of the organisation’s ad guidelines. The latest case, however, is from June 2022. The website also lists 581 non-compliant social media content creators whose brand endorsements on platforms like Instagram violate ASCI guidelines for influencer marketing. The latest case here is from December 2023, and the list was last updated on 27 February this year. 

Besides, the CCPA’s counsel told the Supreme Court last week that it had issued 153 notices for misleading ads between July 2020 and April 2024; only 58 were closed. 

No wonder the Supreme Court is annoyed. Perhaps the swiftest example of an errant advertiser being punished is the full-page apologies Patanjali was forced to run after the judges gave Ramdev and Balkrishna a piece of their minds. 

It is simply impossible for the Supreme Court to go after every individual offender who neither cares about the law and guidelines, nor is affected by being named and shamed on an industry body’s website. Given the changing nature of advertising to encompass ‘nano-influencers’ and fleeting social media content, it’s also not possible for regulators to keep track of every potentially misleading claim (or even campaign) or for celebrities and their teams to fact-check everything they set out to endorse. 

Where does this leave the credibility of a celebrity endorsement in the minds of consumers? There is plenty of wiggle room in the law and with regulators. Remember, food regulator FSSAI increased the acceptable limit for pesticide residue in spices tenfold as news of Singapore and Hong Kong’s ban on some MDH and Everest masalas rolled in. But if a celebrity can now only get a potential customer’s fleeting attention but not trust (or money), what good is the money spent on their pricey endorsements?