Summary: This blog examines the statutory and judicial framework governing various types of brand endorsement disputes in India, including consumer protection claims concerning misleading advertisements, endorser/brand ambassador liabilities and contractual disputes.
Introduction
Brand endorsements often lead to disputes between endorsers, brands, and consumers. This blog examines the legal and regulatory framework governing brand endorsement disputes in India, analysing contractual issues, consumer protection claims concerning misleading advertisements, and endorser/ brand ambassador liabilities. It provides an overview to help brands, endorsers, and influencers understand current regulations and take precautions to avoid legal issues. The relevant statutory/ regulatory framework in this context includes the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”), Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement and Endorsement for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 (“Misleading Ads Guidelines”), the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) (now, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)), Advertising Standards Council of India (“ASCI”) guidelines and the ASCI’s Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media (“Influencer Guidelines”).
Summary of the Legal Framework
The CPA specifically defines endorsement in Section 2(18)[1] as ‘an advertisement which reflects the opinion, finding or experience of the endorser’, and includes endorsement in the definition of advertisement. Section 2(28) defines misleading advertisement as one which falsely describes a product or service, is likely to mislead consumers, conceals important information or conveys an express or implied representation, which constitutes unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturer/ seller.[2]
Rule 2(f) of the Misleading Ads Guidelines defines an endorser[3] and Rule 4 delineates the conditions for non-misleading and valid advertisements, which inter alia include truthful and honest representation, not misleading consumers by exaggerating the accuracy, scientific validity, practical usefulness, capability, performance, service of the goods or product. Rule 13 imposes an obligation on endorsers to undertake due diligence to ensure that endorsements reflect genuine, reasonably current opinion of the endorser based on adequate information about or experience with the product or service. Rule 14 also requires an endorser to disclose any reasonably unexpected connection between the endorser and trader, manufacturer or advertiser of the endorsed product, which might materially affect the value or credibility of the endorsement.
Section 21 empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority (“CCPA”) to order discontinuation or modification of any false or misleading advertisement. Under Section 21(2), the CCPA may impose a Rs 10 lakh penalty on the manufacturer or endorser for the first violation of the prohibition on false or misleading advertisement, extendable up to Rs 50 lakh for subsequent contraventions by the manufacturer or endorser. The CCPA under Section 21(3) can ban an endorser who makes a false or misleading advertisement from endorsing any product or service for up to one year for the first offense, and for up to three years for each subsequent offense. Section 21(7) delineates the various factors CCPA needs to consider while determining any penalty under Section 21.
Additionally, the ASCI’s Code for Self-Regulation of Advertising Content in India (“Code”) sets guidelines to ensure advertisements are not offensive, contain true and honest representation, fair in competition and do not advertise harmful products, services or situations. The Code also provides sector-specific advertising guidelines.
The Influencer Guidelines stipulate that influencers include a disclosure label to identify advertisements and disclose any material connection[4] with the promoted brand. These disclosure obligations vary depending on the platform, format, duration[5] and nature of content.[6] The Influencer Guidelines also require influencers to conduct due diligence by reviewing the product and satisfy themselves that the advertiser can support the claims made in the advertisement.
Judicial Framework
Liability for Misleading Advertisements
In Indian Medical Association v. Union of India,[7] the Hon’ble Supreme Court was hearing a writ petition alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. (“Patanjali”), its managing director Acharya Balkrishna and proponent Baba Ramdev, engaged in a coordinated campaign spreading misinformation and disparaging the modern medicine system, thereby misleading the public. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in said case, on November 21, 2023[8], recorded Patanjali’s assurance that there would be no further violations of laws related to advertising or branding of its products. Additionally, Patanjali committed not to make any casual statements about medicinal efficacy or comments against any medical system to the media. On February 27, 2024[9], upon being apprised of post‑order publications and a press conference that violated the assurance, the Court issued a contempt notice. While awaiting further orders, the Court also prohibited Patanjali from advertising or branding products intended to cure diseases and conditions listed under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Rules, 1955, cautioning adherence to the undertaking. The writ petition was subsequently disposed of on August 11, 2025, with the Hon’ble Supreme Court noting that the reliefs sought in the petition had been largely fulfilled through orders passed during the proceedings.
In Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.[10], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court examined an advertisement featuring Baba Ramdev, which described other Chyawanprash products as ‘dhoka’ (deception) and claimed that only the defendants’ product was authentic. The Court affirmed that comparative advertising is permissible but stated that advertisers may not denigrate or disparage competing products as a group, and that freedom of commercial speech does not extend to false or misleading statements. Given the message and the endorser’s stature, the Court concluded that the advertisement disparaged all Chyawanprash products and issued an ad-interim injunction, ordering its removal from all platforms and restraining its dissemination.
In Nikhil Jain v. Emami Limited,[11] the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central District, Delhi), ruled that packaging and advertising promising claims of ‘fairer skin in three weeks’, without mentioning additional conditions such as nutrition, lifestyle and other variables, asserted later by the opposite party, was misleading and constituted unfair trade practice. The Commission ordered that these advertisements and packaging be withdrawn, directed discontinuance of the practice, and imposed punitive damages — Rs 14,50,000 to be deposited with the Delhi State Consumer Welfare Fund and awarded Rs 60,000 to the complainant inclusive of costs.
Recently, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court decided the case of Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala,[12] wherein the determination of liability of the petitioner in relation to unfair trade practices adopted by Mannapuram Finance, was in question. The Hon’ble Court determined that the petitioner could not be held liable[13] since “liabilities contemplated upon the endorser, is in respect of the proceedings envisaged under Section 21 alone. In any of the other provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, there is no reference of “endorser”. Therefore, the conclusion that has to be arrived at is that, as far as the other consequences arising from the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, in relation to deficiency of service or unfair trade practices are concerned, the liability can be imposed upon an endorser, only in a case in which, a direct link has been established between the person who is availing the service and the persons who are impleaded as the opposite parties in the complaint, as service providers or suppliers of equipments. In other words, merely because, a person falls within the definition “endorser” he cannot be mulcted with the liability for unfair trade practice or deficiency of service, unless the direct link between the relevant transaction and the endorser is established.” Thus, the Hon’ble Court overturned the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order,[14] finding no direct link between the petitioner and the complainants regarding the services availed, clarifying that the liability under the CPA can only be directly fastened on to endorsers in cases involving false and misleading advertisements under Section 21. Alternatively, for a complainant to establish that the endorser is liable, a direct link between the services availed and the endorser’s role would have to be established.
Criminal Liability of Endorsers
In Unsoo Kim v. State of Rajasthan,[15] the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court stayed further investigation into a First Information Report alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy concerning a consumer grievance with a Hyundai vehicle, naming Hyundai’s senior executives and brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone. On a bare perusal of the complaint, the Court noted that there was no cognizable offence disclosed against the petitioners. The Court held that brand ambassadors “have no connection or nexus with the sale of vehicle in question” and that “vicarious liability is alien” to the IPC, implying that brand ambassadors cannot be held liable merely due to brand association.
Contractual Disputes between Brands and Endorsers
In Nike India Pvt. Ltd. v. Virat Kohli,[16] the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in an appeal from the rejection of interim relief, declined to restrain the respondent from negotiating or entering into endorsement arrangements with third parties during a purported contract extension between the endorser and the brand. The Court confirmed that the respondent’s termination of the contract was lawful and refused to enforce interim restraints involving negative covenants in a personal service endorsement, citing Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which voids any agreements that restrain lawful business, trade or profession.
Suggestions for brands and endorsers
Endorsers must conduct due diligence before endorsing, confirm their claims are genuine and informed, and clearly disclose any material connections to the advertiser. Endorsers must refrain from asserting therapeutic or efficacy claims beyond established evidence, avoid negative comparisons that denigrate competing products, and ensure platform‑specific disclosures, as stipulated by the Influencer Guidelines, are made when advertising on digital media. Non‑compliance with due diligence and disclosure obligations under the CPA may attract regulatory action, including directions to discontinue or modify advertisements, monetary penalties, and prohibition from making endorsements for specified periods, in addition to reputational consequences.
Brands must substantiate claims (scientific, technical or regulatory, as applicable) before advertising and ensure advertisements are truthful, not false or misleading, and comply with sectoral statutes, while avoiding comparative advertising engaging in generic disparagement. They must also establish comprehensive internal review protocols for influencers and endorser content; and maintain records evidencing materials regarding products shared with endorsers. Brands must clearly disclose material connections and ensure that any ‘therapeutic or curative’ claims comply with the relevant guidelines and laws. Brands that do not comply may face orders to cease or modify misleading advertisements, civil penalties, directives from competent consumer authorities, as well as exposure to private actions and interim injunctions.
Conclusion
The jurisprudence demonstrates that Indian courts take immediate steps against misleading or disparaging advertisements. However, the current legal and judicial framework is more inclined to hold brands accountable for their obligations and related violations. Although the CPA contains provisions for imposition of liability on the endorser, it is not common judicial practice to impose penalties on endorsers. In practice, brands and endorsers face legal risks in advertising, but these can be mitigated by substantiating claims, clear messaging, and adhering to all relevant regulations. Brands and endorsers who exercise due diligence and provide transparent disclosures in their advertisements are better protected against potential legal action.
[1] Any message, verbal statement, demonstration or depiction of the name, signature, likeness or other identifiable characteristics of an individual or depiction of the name or seal of any institution or organization which makes the consumer to believe that it reflects the opinion, finding or experience of the person making such endorsement.
[2] One which falsely describes a product or service, gives a false guarantee, or likely to mislead consumers or conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer/seller would constitute unfair trade practice, or deliberately conceals important information.
[3] An individual or a group or an institution making endorsement of any goods, product or service in an advertisement whose opinion, belief, finding or experience being the message which such advertisement appears to reflect
[4] Material connection is not limited to monetary compensation. Disclosure is required if there is anything of value given to mention or talk about the Advertiser’s product or service. For example: If the Advertiser or its Agents give free or discounted products or service or other perks and then if the influencer mentions one of its products or services, a disclosure is needed even if they weren’t specifically asked to talk about that product or service.
[5] For videos that last 15 seconds or less – The disclosure label must stay for a minimum of 3 seconds; For videos longer than 15 seconds, but less than 2 minutes, the disclosure label should stay for 1/3rd the length of the video; For videos which are 2 minutes or longer, the disclosure label must stay for the entire duration of the section in which the promoted brand or its features, benefits etc. are mentioned.
[6] If the advertisement is only a picture or video post without accompanying text (such as Instagram stories or Snapchat), the discloser label needs to be superimposed over the picture or video and it should be ensured that the average consumer is able to see it clearly. In live streams, the disclosure label should be announced at the beginning and the end of the broadcast. If the post continues to be visible after the live stream is over, appropriate disclosure must be added to the text or caption. In the case of audio media, the disclosure must be clearly announced at the beginning and at the end of the audio, and before and after every break that is taken in between.
[7] W.P. (C) No. 645/2022.
[8] Indian Medical Assn. v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2111.
[9] Indian Medical Assn. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2328.
[10] SCC OnLine Del 8347.
[11] CC No. 53/2013; District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central District, Delhi; final order dated 9th December 2024.
[12] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 31700 of 2024, Order dated 29th October 2025.
[13] The actor was the brand ambassador of Mannapuram Finance who was the opposing party in Consumer Complaint No. 196 of 2022 filed by the consumers before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram.
[14] Revision Petition No. 75/2023, Order dated 1st November 2023.
[15] 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4658.
[16] 2013 SCC OnLine KAR 7776.