The Central Consumer Protection Authority has finally stopped looking the other way. By sending notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff regarding their association with Vimal Elaichi, the government is essentially calling out the industry’s worst-kept secret: surrogate advertising is alive, well, and frankly, becoming an insult to the viewer’s intelligence.
We all know what Vimal is selling. If you ask a child what Vimal Elaichi is, they won’t tell you it’s a breath freshener. They’ll point to the gutkha packets lining every street corner shop in the country. This isn’t just a clever branding exercise; it’s a multi-crore operation built on the technicality that tobacco advertising is banned, but advertising a namesake cardamom brand is perfectly legal.
The law is clear about health warnings, yet these commercials dance around them with the grace of a seasoned politician. The brand owners argue that they are promoting a mouth freshener, completely ignoring the fact that the entire brand identity is tethered to a product that is prohibited from being marketed. This is the definition of a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. For years, the industry has defended this practice, hiding behind the legal definitions of brand extensions. But the CCPA’s move suggests that the ‘legality’ defense is starting to wear thin.
What makes this situation particularly thorny is the role of the celebrity. When A-list stars—the same ones who represent fitness, health, and national pride—stand in front of a camera promoting a product that is universally understood to be a front for tobacco, their personal brand takes a hit, even if they claim ignorance. These stars are not just faces; they are influencers with immense reach. By lending their image to these campaigns, they are providing a layer of respectability to a brand category that otherwise wouldn’t get a second glance. The argument that they are merely ‘brand ambassadors’ for a legitimate product doesn’t hold much water in the court of public opinion.
The irony is that the advertising world prides itself on creativity, yet this is the most uncreative approach possible. It’s lazy. It relies on the assumption that regulators are toothless and the audience is oblivious. By forcing these stars to explain their association, the CCPA is shifting the goalposts. It’s a reminder that marketing isn’t just about what you can get away with under the law; it’s about the responsibility that comes with influence.
If the authorities actually follow through, this could trigger a domino effect. We have seen this play out in the alcohol industry for decades, where soda companies front for whisky brands. If the government decides to tighten the screws on the ‘brand extension’ loophole, the entire business model for these companies will need a complete overhaul. They won’t be able to rely on the soft-focus, high-budget ads featuring Bollywood’s biggest names to keep their real products top-of-mind.
For now, it’s a waiting game. These stars have deep pockets and legal teams that specialize in making things go away, but the optics are bad. Brands often talk about ‘purpose’ and ‘authenticity’ in their mission statements, yet they fund these campaigns through revenue generated by products that harm their core consumers. It is a dissonance that will be harder to ignore as scrutiny increases. Advertising is about truth, or at least it should be. Right now, the Vimal campaign is just a masterclass in obfuscation.
