YouTuber Gaurav Taneja, popularly known as Flying Beast, has addressed the controversy surrounding the reported death of his Labrador, Mau, saying he does not believe he owes the internet an explanation. He also used the controversy to warn startup founders about how quickly allegations involving a creator can spill over into their businesses.In a YouTube video titled “What Really Happened to Mau: The Controversy”, Taneja said he had originally planned to talk about his pet during a visit to his farm on September 29. However, he decided to address the issue earlier after allegations about Mau began circulating widely online.“I don’t think the internet deserves an explanation,” Taneja said, questioning why one version of events had been accepted by many people without waiting for his response.Mau had been a regular presence in Taneja’s family vlogs before gradually disappearing from his content. In early 2025, after viewers repeatedly asked about the Labrador, Taneja explained in a video titled “Where is Mau?” that the dog had been moved to his farmhouse.At the time, Taneja said changes in his family’s lifestyle had made it difficult to keep Mau at home. He also referred to concerns within his family and cited religious reasons for moving the dog to the farm. He said he understood that many people were comfortable having pets in their personal spaces, but that it had become difficult for his family.The decision drew criticism from some viewers, with accusations that he had abandoned his pet.Former employee raises allegationsThe controversy resurfaced in September 2026 after Pushpendra Choudhary, a fitness creator and former employee associated with Taneja, began posting about Mau on Instagram. Choudhary, who has claimed to have worked at Rosier Farm, raised allegations about the dog’s health, diet, living conditions and the care he received before his reported death in July.Story continues below this adChoudhary also questioned the conditions at Taneja’s farmhouse and alleged that Mau had to deal with other dogs there. The claims have not been independently verified, and publicly available information does not establish Mau’s cause of death or show that any action or inaction by Taneja caused it.As the posts gained traction, social media users began questioning what had happened to Mau and why he had been moved to the farmhouse. There were also calls to boycott businesses linked to Taneja.Addressing the allegations, Taneja said his family had Mau’s medical records and that the Labrador had been taken to multiple hospitals. However, he said he did not want to publish a detailed account of everything that happened.Taneja defends himselfA major part of Taneja’s video focused on what he described as the speed at which allegations can become accepted as fact on social media. He argued that people had heard one side of the story and formed an opinion before giving him an opportunity to respond.Story continues below this adTaneja also spoke about Choudhary’s association with his businesses and disputed his account of how he left the company. “He was fired from BeastLife, he did not resign,” says Taneja.He further questioned whether the people sharing videos about Mau were actually concerned about the dog or were responding to the controversy surrounding him. “Kisi ko Mau ki chinta nahi hai, jo reel bana rahe hain, kissi ko chinta nahi hai,” says Taneja.Responding specifically to claims that Mau had been forced to survive on “cow feed”, Taneja said, “95 percent log jo yeh video dekh rahe hain, tum se accha khaana Mau khaata tha. (Mau used to eat better food than 95 per cent of the people watching this video)”He also spoke emotionally about his relationship with Mau and the care he says he provided to the dog. “Mujhe bohot chhota lag raha hai bolte hue ki maine Mau ke liye kya kya kiya,” said Taneja, adding that he had done everything he could to look after his pet.Story continues below this adAmid boycott calls, Taneja flags risks to businessThe controversy, however, led Taneja to a larger discussion about the risks faced by businesses built around a creator’s personal identity. “This is a dangerous precedent,” he said while addressing startup founders.Taneja pointed out that creator-led companies benefit from the visibility that comes with having a recognisable founder, but that the same connection can become a liability when the individual faces a controversy. “The advantage is that you get a lot of visibility. Disadvantage is what you are seeing,” he said.Taneja currently runs several businesses, including sports nutrition company BeastLife and food brand Rosier Foods. He argued that when a founder and a company are closely linked in the public eye, a controversy involving the creator can quickly affect perceptions of the businesses as well.Amid calls for a boycott, Taneja said consumers were free to make their own choices and insisted that he was not going to publicly defend himself simply to protect his companies. “Please boycott whatever you want to boycott,” he said, adding that people could decide where they wanted to spend their money.Story continues below this adHe went further, saying he was prepared to accept whatever commercial consequences followed. “Whether it’s zero views, or 100 views, or 9 million unsubscribes, or both brands shut down, I don’t want anything from you,” Taneja said.“I don’t want to save the brand,” he added.