Maharashtra’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued show-cause notices to Hindi cinema actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff last week, alleging that their advertisement for Vimal Elaichi amounts to surrogate advertising for Vimal Pan Masala.Surrogate advertising is a form of marketing used to promote products banned or limited from advertising under government regulations — such as alcohol, tobacco, and pan masala — by promoting another product under the exact same brand name, logo, or visual style to ensure brand awareness in minds of consumers.The notices ask the three actors to explain their role in the ad, which in the FDA’s assessment, creates an association with the Vimal Pan Masala brand — a product currently prohibited in the state — and could amount to its indirect promotion.The latest action reportedly marks the first instance of the regulator examining surrogate advertising even as it ramps up its crackdown on gutkha and pan masala containing tobacco or nicotine. Here’s what to know about the laws invoked in the notices, the details and action sought from the actors, and the ongoing crackdown in Maharashtra.What the notices sayMaharashtra has prohibited gutkha and pan masala containing tobacco or nicotine since 2012 under Section 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, 2006. The prohibition is renewed annually, with the current renewal in force since July 13, 2026.The notices state: “Upon examination of the said advertisement, it prima facie appears that the advertisement promotes the Vimal brand, which is mainly associated with Pan Masala, a product prohibited for manufacture, storage, transportation, distribution and sale in the State of Maharashtra for a period of one year, with effect from the date specified in the Prohibition Order dated the 13th July, 2026, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Maharashtra State, under Section 30(2)(a) of the FSS Act, 2006.”According to the FDA, the Vimal Elaichi ad’s presentation, dialogue, product name, and market context raise a “serious question” over whether it constitutes indirect or surrogate promotion of a prohibited tobacco-related product.Story continues below this adAlso read | Vimal Elaichi ad: What Tukaram Mundhe’s FDA wants SRK, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff to explainThe regulator said given all three actors appear as brand endorsers, their direct participation is liable to be examined under the following provisions of the FSS Act:– Section 24, which restricts misleading and deceptive food advertisements, and– Section 53, which provides for a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh for anyone who is “party to the publication” of a misleading food advertisement.It also cited the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018.Details and actions soughtThe agency has given the three actors a 15-day period to respond with a written explanation, along with the supporting documents they have been asked to submit, in person or through a duly authorised representative. In the same notice, the FDA has laid out eight points it expects the three actors to act on immediately.Story continues below this adAmong them is “immediately discontinue your participation in and endorsement of VIMAL Pan Masala/Elaichi advertisement”, immediately remove the advertisement and promotional content from their social media handles, and not provide “any further cooperation or assistance in the broadcasting, publication, dissemination or promotion of the said advertisement in any form”.The FDA has also asked them to furnish copies and details of the agreement or endorsement contract, campaign brief, product information, payment or endorsement arrangement, and details of the concerned advertising agency and brand owner, along with details of the due diligence undertaken by them and their agency prior to participating in the advertisement.It has asked for particulars of all television channels, digital and social media platforms and other media on which the advertisement has been broadcast, published or disseminated with their participation, together with the period of such broadcast or dissemination, and for disclosure of any material connection between themselves and the advertiser or brand owner as contemplated under the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) Guidelines, 2022.Also read | ‘Ban them’: How Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn defended association with controversial brand ads“Furnish documentary evidence establishing whether VIMAL Elaichi is an independent product actually available for sale in the market, or whether the same constitutes a surrogate or brand extension communication intended to promote VIMAL Pan Masala/tobacco related products,” reads one of the points.Story continues below this adThe FDA has also cited Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which empowers the CCPA to direct discontinuation or modification of a false or misleading advertisement, and to impose upon the endorser of such an advertisement a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh, and up to Rs 50 lakh for every subsequent contravention.“The Authority is further empowered to prohibit the endorser of a false or misleading advertisement from making endorsement of any product or service for a period which may extend to one year, and for every subsequent contravention, up to three years,” reads the notice, issued by the FDA and signed by N.T. Mujawar, Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA Greater Mumbai Division.Finally, the FDA has asked the three actors to submit a written explanation as to why legal action should not be initiated against them for the prima facie violations of the aforesaid provisions of law.The CCPA, under the Department of Consumer Affairs, had notified the “Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements” in 2022 to curb misleading advertisements and protect consumers. The CCPA was established under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for regulating matters relating to violation of the rights of the consumers, unfair trade practices and false or misleading advertisements which are prejudicial to the interests of public and consumers and to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumers as a class.Story continues below this adAccording to a Press Information Bureau note dated June 10, 2022, “the guidelines seek to ensure that consumers are not being fooled with unsubstantiated claims, exaggerated promises, misinformation and false claims. Such advertisements violate various rights of consumers such as right to be informed, right to choose and right to be safeguarded against potentially unsafe products and services.”Under Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, misleading advertisement is defined as “in relation to any product or service… an advertisement, which —(i) falsely describes such product or service; or(ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or(iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or(iv) deliberately conceals important information.”Story continues below this adThe present guidelines define “surrogate advertisement” as “an advertisement for goods, product or service, whose advertising is otherwise prohibited or restricted by law, by circumventing such prohibition or restriction and portraying it to be an advertisement for other goods, product or service, the advertising of which is not prohibited or restricted by law”.The Guidelines also have provisions pertaining to disclaimers in advertisements in terms of material information to be revealed, the language in which it is published, and the font size of such disclaimer. Similarly, clear guidelines are laid for the duties of manufacturer, service provider, advertiser and advertising agency, due diligence to be carried out before endorsing and others.Penalties for violating the Guidelines are also clearly outlined. CCPA can impose a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh on manufacturers, advertisers, and endorsers for any misleading advertisements. For subsequent contraventions, CCPA may impose a penalty of up to Rs 50 lakh. CCPA can prohibit the endorser of a misleading advertisement from making any endorsement for up to 1 year and for subsequent contravention, prohibition can extend up to 3 years.The crackdownThe FDA has stepped up enforcement across a range of food-safety concerns, from adulterated milk and food served at restaurants to the sale of junk food in and around schools and the manufacture and sale of banned gutkha and tobacco-containing pan masala. Recent months have seen the regulator carry out inspections, seizures, and action.Story continues below this adBetween May 25 and July 31, the FDA raided 658 establishments where banned products were found, seized stock worth Rs 15.11 crore, registered 519 FIRs, and made 701 arrests. It also seized 78 vehicles carrying banned goods worth Rs 6.6 crore.NewsletterFollow our daily newsletter so you never miss anything important. On Wednesday, we answer readers' questions.SubscribeOn June 12, FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe directed officials to coordinate with police to invoke the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, in eligible cases involving organised networks dealing in gutkha, tobacco or nicotine-containing pan masala and similar banned products.Regulatory scrutinyIn the past, the Vimal Elaichi campaign had faced regulatory scrutiny, though under a different law and against the promoter, Vishnu Pouch Packaging Pvt Ltd.In 2018, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), which operates under the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, issued show-cause notices to the company, which promotes and advertises Vimal Elaichi under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, alleging indirect advertising of tobacco products, by hiring a Bollywood star to attract youngsters. The company challenged the notices, stating that it was not manufacturing any tobacco product for “VIMAL” brand in the domestic market.Story continues below this adIn January 2024, the Delhi High Court dismissed DGHS appeals against trial court orders staying them. The trial court had allowed the company to continue advertising products without tobacco, while the question of whether the campaign amounted to surrogate advertising remained contested. The High Court observed that the company had a “fundamental right to carry on business” of “pan masala sans tobacco so long as it has constitutional sanction”.