Influencer advertising is now a central part of India’s advertising ecosystem. As influencers increasingly become the face of commercial campaigns, questions of advertising compliance have followed. Recent data from the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) illustrates the scale of the concern: of the 37,532 advertising violation cases processed by ASCI, 21.12% involved influencer violations. The proportion of advertisements found non-compliant or requiring modification also reportedly increased from 93% in 2021–22 to 98% in 2025–26.

These figures reflect a broader shift: influencers are no longer merely promotional channels; they are meaningful participants in advertising and, therefore, in advertising compliance. The issue becomes especially significant where the product being promoted is food and the advertisement makes claims about health, nutrition, legality or safety.

Against this backdrop, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has turned its attention to celebrities and social media influencers promoting food products.

On August 13, 2026, FSSAI warned celebrities and influencers against endorsing food products through unverified or misleading claims. The regulator emphasized that claims concerning food safety, legality, health and nutritional benefits should be verified before they are promoted. Its message was effectively: “verify before you amplify.”

The warning brings an existing legal concern into a newer advertising environment: when an influencer amplifies a claim created by a brand, how far should responsibility for that claim extend to the influencer?

The Existing Legal Framework

FSSAI’s warning does not create a new prohibition on influencer advertising. The statutory framework governing misleading food advertisements already exists.

Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 prohibits advertisements that are misleading or deceptive or that contravene the Act, rules or regulations. It also prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in promoting food, including false or misleading representations concerning its standard, quality, composition, usefulness or efficacy without adequate or scientific justification.

Section 53 provides the penalty for misleading advertisements. A person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of, an advertisement that falsely describes food or is likely to mislead consumers regarding its nature, substance or quality may face a penalty of up to ₹10 lakh (~10,000 USD)

The phrase “party to the publication” is particularly relevant to influencer advertising. Whether an influencer falls within this expression would depend on their actual role and participation in the advertisement, rather than merely their status as an influencer.

The Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 further require food claims to be truthful, unambiguous, meaningful and not misleading. Health and functional claims must satisfy applicable requirements regarding scientific substantiation.

FSSAI’s warning therefore operates within an existing legal framework. Its significance lies in directing greater attention to the person who amplifies the claim.

Previous Violations and Recent Regulatory Action

FSSAI's warning is not the first time celebrity endorsements have come under scrutiny. Over the years, misleading claims and surrogate advertising have led to complaints, public backlash and celebrities stepping away from campaigns. 

In 2021, Amitabh Bachchan faced criticism over his endorsement of Kamla Pasand's “silver-coated elaichi” advertisement, which was alleged to be a form of surrogate advertising for the brand's pan masala  products. When the advertisements continued to run, he also sent a legal notice to the brand seeking their removal.

A more familiar example is the Vimal Elaichi campaign featuring Akshay Kumar, Shah Rukh Khan and Ajay Devgn. In 2022, Akshay Kumar faced significant public backlash and subsequently apologized and withdrew from the endorsement.

What began largely as a question of public criticism and a celebrity's choice of endorsement has now taken a more formal turn. In August 2026, the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration issued show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, alleging that the Vimal Elaichi advertisement indirectly promoted Vimal Pan Masala, a product prohibited in the state of Maharashtra. The actors have reportedly been asked to discontinue the campaign, remove related social-media content and provide details of their endorsement arrangements and role in the advertisement.

The shift from public backlash to formal regulatory scrutiny is significant. It raises a larger question: how far should legal responsibility extend to celebrities and influencers who lend their credibility to an advertisement?

What Level of Due Diligence Is Reasonable?

FSSAI’s direction to verify claims raises an important practical question: what exactly is an influencer expected to do before promoting a food claim?

A reasonable standard could require influencers to conduct basic checks before endorsing significant food or health claims. They could ask the brand for supporting material, check whether the claim is permitted under applicable regulations, review the information provided and avoid exaggerating what the product is represented to do.

However, this is different from requiring influencers to independently establish the scientific validity of every claim. The 2018 Regulations require health and functional claims to have an appropriate scientific basis, but that responsibility naturally falls more heavily on the business that creates and markets the product and has access to the relevant evidence and technical expertise.

It would therefore be unrealistic to expect an ordinary influencer to reproduce that scientific assessment before every endorsement. Due diligence should not become a requirement to conduct independent scientific research.

The Need for Proportionate Enforcement

FSSAI’s approach addresses a genuine consumer-protection concern. If influencers can always argue that they merely repeated what a brand told them, misleading food claims could reach millions through a trusted intermediary with little accountability.

At the same time, an undefined duty to “verify” could place an unrealistic burden on influencers who may lack the expertise to evaluate technical claims, while manufacturers and advertising agencies often retain far greater control over the information being communicated.

Enforcement will therefore be crucial. Regulators should distinguish between the manufacturer that created and controlled a misleading claim and an influencer who communicated information supplied to them.

A proportionate approach should consider who created the claim, who controlled its content, what each participant knew, what evidence was available and whether the influencer had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the misleading communication.

Conclusion

As influencer advertising grows, so do concerns about the responsibility attached to it. FSSAI’s warning is part of this larger shift towards greater accountability in digital advertising. The core question is not whether influencers can ever be responsible for misleading food claims, but how that responsibility should be assessed. The answer should not depend only on who delivered the message. It should also consider what the influencer knew, how involved they were, what control they had over the claim and what they could reasonably have done to verify it.