Celebrity endorsement works because it transfers trust — a familiar face serves as a promise of quality. ASCI’s guidelines proceed from the position that whoever accepts payment for making that promise carries some responsibility for whether it is true.
Who counts as a celebrity
For the purposes of the guidelines, celebrities are people from entertainment and sports, and other well-known personalities — doctors, authors, activists, educationists — who are compensated for appearing in advertisements.
The Advertising Standards Council of India released the guidelines in 2017 to ensure advertisements featuring them are not misleading or deceptive.
What they require
1. Compliance with the ASCI Code. Celebrities are expected to have adequate knowledge of the Code, and a duty is placed on the advertiser and agency to make the celebrity aware of the guidelines. Advertisements must be honest, not offensive, must not promote harmful products, and must observe fair competition.
2. Genuine opinions. Testimonials, endorsements and opinions must reflect the genuine and reasonably current opinion of the person making them, and reflect adequate information about or experience with the product or service.
3. Due diligence. A duty is cast on celebrities to ensure that all claims and comparisons can be substantiated and are not deceptive or misleading. A celebrity may seek advice from ASCI to identify violations — and failing to do so may itself count against due diligence.
4. Prohibited categories. A strict ban applies to advertising products, treatments or remedies prohibited under the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act and the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, and equally to tobacco-based products or products carrying a health warning.
The second and third requirements are the substantive ones, because they place obligations on the individual rather than only on the advertiser. A celebrity who endorses a claim they have not checked is exposed in their own right.
Enforcement in practice
Contrary to the usual expectation of Indian enforcement, these guidelines have been implemented in spirit, with celebrities held responsible.
Hero MotoCorp / Virat Kohli. Complaints against a motorbike commercial came from government bodies, a Supreme Court committee, a consumer organisation and end users, on road safety grounds — the endorser was shown riding dangerously and flouting traffic rules. The Consumer Complaints Council upheld them. The advertiser agreed to revise the commercial, but the proposed revisions did not address all objections, and because the complaint came from the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety it was not handled through informal resolution but processed in full. The CCC concluded the commercial portrayed traffic violations, showed dangerous practices and manifested disregard for safety, encouraging unsafe driving that would harm both rider and public — breaching the Code, the guidelines on automotive advertising, and the celebrity guidelines.
Officer’s Choice Blue / MS Dhoni. A complaint about surrogate advertising by a liquor brand was upheld, the advertisements being misleading by implication and failing the requirements for brand extension products or services.
Frankfinn / Alia Bhatt. A commercial claiming to be the “World’s No. 1 Airhostess Training Institute” was challenged. The CCC found the claim unsubstantiated — no verifiable comparative data against similar institutes worldwide, and no third-party validation. It was misleading by exaggeration and likely to cause grave or widespread disappointment, contravening the guidelines on advertising educational institutions, the Code, and the celebrity guidelines. Upheld.
Why it matters
The guidelines help ensure advertising claims are not misleading, false or unsubstantiated. Advertisers following them protect consumers, particularly for products or services capable of causing serious financial loss or physical harm.
Two practical points follow for anyone in this chain. For advertisers and agencies, the duty to brief the celebrity on the guidelines is theirs, and a commercial built on an unsubstantiated superlative will not survive a complaint. For celebrities, accepting a fee attracts a personal due diligence obligation — asking for the substantiation before signing is considerably cheaper than an upheld complaint.
Note also that ASCI is not the only forum. Consumer protection law reaches misleading advertisements, with the Central Consumer Protection Authority empowered to act against them and against endorsers — a route considerably more active in recent years than when these guidelines were issued.
The takeaways
- Celebrities carry a personal due diligence duty — claims must be substantiable.
- Endorsements must reflect genuine, current opinion and real experience.
- Prohibited categories are absolute — magic remedies and tobacco.
- Complaints have been upheld against major endorsers, not merely entertained.
Frequently asked questions
Are celebrities responsible for the claims in advertisements they appear in? Yes — ASCI’s guidelines place a due diligence duty on celebrities to ensure claims and comparisons can be substantiated and are not misleading.
Which products can celebrities not endorse? Products, treatments or remedies prohibited under the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act and the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, along with tobacco-based products and products carrying health warnings.
Who must inform the celebrity of the guidelines? The advertiser and the agency, who carry a duty to make the celebrity aware of them.
Is ASCI the only avenue for complaints? No — consumer protection law also reaches misleading advertisements, and the Central Consumer Protection Authority can act against advertisers and endorsers.