ASCI Complaints Against Brands and Influencers in India Reached a Record High in 2025-26

ASCI complaints against brands and influencers in India hit a new high in 2025-26. The Advertising Standards Council of India processed 11,581 total cases in the year, a 21% increase from the previous year. Of the 9,841 ads scrutinised for potential violations, 98% required modification.

That is not a niche compliance problem. That is a near-universal failure rate.

The data from ASCI’s Annual Complaints Report for April 2025 to March 2026 makes one thing very clear: the vast majority of advertising violations in India are not deliberate attempts to deceive. They are the result of brands and creators repeating the same patterns because nobody told them clearly what those patterns look like, why they get flagged, and what to do instead.

This article changes that. Below is a breakdown of every major violation category from the ASCI report, written specifically for brands and creators who want to stay on the right side of India’s advertising standards in 2026.

The Scale of the Problem: Key Numbers from the ASCI Report 2025-26

Before the specifics, the headline data is worth understanding.

11,581 total cases processed, up 21% from the previous year. 9,841 ads scrutinised, up 37%. Of those, 97.3% appeared on digital platforms, with 82% on social media specifically. Meta platforms (Instagram and Facebook) accounted for 79.84% of all digital violations.

For creators and brands running campaigns on Instagram, this means the platform where most Indian influencer marketing happens is also where ASCI is watching most closely.

1,609 advertisements were processed specifically for influencer violations. Of those, 97.3% required modification. 54% of influencer violations involved categories that are disallowed by law entirely, primarily offshore betting and alcohol. 88% of influencers eventually complied once flagged, but compliance after the fact does not undo the reputational damage of being publicly cited.

Perhaps the most striking data point: among Forbes India’s Top 100 Digital Stars, 76% were found in contravention of ASCI guidelines in 2025, up from 69% in 2024. The biggest creators in India are getting more non-compliant, not less.

Here is what the violations actually were and how to avoid every one of them.

Violation 1: Promoting Offshore Betting and Legally Disallowed Categories

What the data says: Offshore betting made up 72.14% of all ads requiring modification in 2025-26. 854 influencers were reported for promoting offshore betting between April and December 2025 alone. Despite the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act (PROGA) coming into effect in August 2025, the volume of betting ads actually increased after the Act, averaging 795 ads per month post-PROGA versus 594 per month before it.

Why creators keep falling into this trap: Betting brands pay well, respond quickly to creator outreach, and often frame their products as “skill-based gaming” or “fantasy sports” rather than gambling. The brief sounds legitimate. The money arrives fast. The legal and reputational risk arrives later.

What brands must not do: Commission influencer content promoting offshore betting platforms, alcohol brands (outside licensed surrogate advertising rules), tobacco, or any other category prohibited under Indian law. The brief does not protect you if the content violates the law.

What creators must not do: Accept campaigns from offshore betting platforms regardless of how they are described. “Skill gaming,” “prediction platform,” or “fantasy league” language does not change the regulatory category. If you are unsure whether a brand operates legally in India, search for their operating licence before agreeing to any paid partnership.

The ASCI data shows 54% of all influencer violations fall into legally disallowed categories. This is the single most avoidable category of violation in the entire report.

Violation 2: Unsubstantiated Claims in Personal Care and Beauty

What the data says: Personal care was the second largest violative sector with 639 cases processed. 90% required modification. 45% of these cases involved influencer-led advertising specifically.

The violation patterns ASCI flagged most consistently:

Unrealistic timelines such as “acne reversal in 6 hours” or “5 years younger in 5 days.” Hyper-specific numerical claims like “hair growth of 23,800 strands” presented without credible scientific substantiation. Superlative claims such as “India’s No.1” without independent verification. Influencer testimonials presented as universal outcomes when they reflect only personal experience.

What brands must not do: Put unsubstantiated claims into creator briefs. If a brand asks a creator to say a product delivers a specific result in a specific timeframe, the brand must be able to provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence for that claim. Putting the claim in a brief does not transfer legal responsibility entirely to the creator. ASCI holds both parties accountable.

Do not use “India’s No.1” or equivalent superlatives without third-party verified data such as Nielsen, Kantar, or an independent industry report. The claim must be current, verifiable, and based on a clearly defined category.

What creators must not do: Make claims about personal care products that you cannot verify from your own experience or from substantiation documents the brand provides. If a brand brief asks you to say a skincare product “reverses ageing in 7 days” and you have no evidence for this, the correct response is to ask the brand for their clinical study before agreeing to include the claim.

Your personal testimonial (“this product worked for my skin”) is legally different from a universal claim (“this product works for all skin types in X days”). Stick to what you can honestly say about your own experience and flag claims that go beyond that.

Violation 3: Misleading Claims in Food, Beverages, and Nutraceuticals

What the data says: Food and beverages produced 376 cases, with nutraceuticals making up 52% of all F&B violations. 97% of influencer cases in the F&B category were found in violation. 88% of all F&B ads that were reviewed required modification.

The specific patterns ASCI flagged:

Claims of disease reversal such as “reverse fatty liver” or “reduce HbA1c” from food or supplement products without medical substantiation. Extreme weight loss promises of 10 to 15 kg per month without diet or exercise changes. Height increase claims for children of 20 or more centimetres in 90 days. New product formats making replacement claims, such as “drinkable sunscreen” that replaces standard SPF 30+ protection.

What brands must not do: Use disease treatment or cure language for any food, beverage, or supplement product. Indian law is clear: only licensed drugs can make disease treatment claims. A supplement that supports liver health is legally different from a supplement that “reverses fatty liver.” The former may be claimable with appropriate substantiation. The latter is a violation regardless of what the clinical data says.

Do not make weight loss, height gain, or developmental claims that exceed what your clinical evidence supports. A 90-day study showing modest results cannot be the basis for a claim promising dramatic transformation.

What creators must not do: Promote nutraceuticals, supplements, or functional food products with health claims you have not personally verified through the brand’s substantiation documents. The 97% violation rate in this category means the overwhelming majority of food and supplement influencer content in India that gets reviewed by ASCI has a problem.

Before posting about any health or wellness product, ask the brand directly: what regulatory category is this product in, what health claims are legally permissible, and can you share the substantiation documents for any claims in the brief? If they cannot answer these questions clearly, the brief is not ready.

Violation 4: Missing or Inadequate Disclosure of Paid Partnerships

What the data says: Disclosure violations cut across all influencer categories in the ASCI report. While the report does not isolate disclosure non-compliance as a standalone violation count, it is a contributing factor in the majority of influencer cases processed, since content that violates disclosure rules is flagged during the same review process.

ASCI’s requirements on disclosure have not changed but enforcement has intensified. 97.3% of influencer ads reviewed required modification. The most common disclosure failures:

No disclosure at all on gifted products or paid partnerships. Disclosure placed after the “read more” cut-off in Instagram captions. Using vague phrases like “in association with” or “thanks to Brand X” instead of approved labels. Disclosing in English on regional language content. Using the platform’s branded content tag as the only disclosure without a text label.

What brands must not do: Brief creators without explicit, written instructions on ASCI disclosure requirements. Your contract with every creator must include a compliance clause requiring approved disclosure labels. If you are the brand and the creator does not disclose, ASCI holds the brand responsible alongside the creator.

Review creator content before it goes live. Include content approval as a standard step in your campaign workflow, not an afterthought.

What creators must not do: Post any paid or gifted content without an approved disclosure label at the very start of the caption. Approved labels are: #Ad, #Sponsored, #Collab, #Partnership, or #[BrandName]Partner. For video content, verbal disclosure at the start of the video is required in addition to the caption label.

If you received a product for free, even with “no obligation to post,” and you choose to post about it, disclosure is required. The ASCI standard applies to the nature of the relationship, not whether payment was cash.

For the complete disclosure guide with platform-by-platform rules, read the ASCI Influencer Guidelines 2026: Complete Guide for Creators and Brands.

Violation 5: Electronics, Durables, and Comparison Claims

What the data says: Electronics and consumer durables was the third largest influencer violation category, representing 7.9% of all influencer cases processed. Common violations include performance claims that exceed what independent testing supports, before-and-after comparisons that are not conducted under controlled conditions, and battery life or speed claims that do not reflect real-world usage.

What brands must not do: Put performance benchmarks or comparison claims into creator briefs that are not supported by verifiable independent testing. “Fastest in its class” and “longest battery life” are claims that require substantiation. If a competitor challenges the claim, the brand must be able to produce the evidence.

Do not use competitive comparison formats that denigrate a named competitor’s product. Comparative advertising is permissible in India under ASCI guidelines, but only when the comparison is factual, verifiable, and does not mislead.

What creators must not do: Make specific performance claims about electronics or durables based solely on a brand brief without verifying that the claims reflect your own experience with the product. If you have not tested battery life yourself and the brief asks you to claim “48-hour battery,” ask the brand for the test data before including the claim.

Violation 6: Fashion and Lifestyle Claims That Cross Into Misleading Territory

What the data says: Fashion and lifestyle was the fifth largest influencer violation category at 4.3% of all influencer cases. The violations in this category tend to be subtler than in health or betting: environmental claims that cannot be substantiated (“100% sustainable,” “carbon neutral”), fit and sizing claims that do not reflect real-world product performance, and before-and-after content that uses editing or styling to misrepresent what the product actually does.

What brands must not do: Make green or sustainability claims without third-party certification or verifiable data. “Eco-friendly,” “sustainable,” and “carbon neutral” are claims with specific regulatory interpretations. Using them loosely in creator briefs creates ASCI exposure.

Do not use heavily edited before-and-after content that misrepresents the product’s effect. This applies particularly to fashion, fitness apparel, and accessories.

What creators must not do: Amplify sustainability claims from brands without asking what the claim is based on. A brand calling their packaging “eco-friendly” needs to be able to define what that means specifically before you repeat it to your audience.

For lifestyle and fashion content, be careful about presenting styled, edited product shots in ways that imply the product performs differently than it does for a regular user.

Violation 7: Real Estate Advertising Without Mandatory Disclosures

What the data says: Real estate was the second largest violative sector overall with 643 cases. 629 of these involved Telangana properties flagged for missing RERA project registration numbers and mandatory website links. The remaining 14 cases involved direct ASCI Code violations including misleading claims about assured rental returns and unsubstantiated green building certifications.

What brands must not do: Run any real estate advertising, including influencer campaigns, without including the RERA project registration number and the mandatory project website link. This is a legal requirement under RERA, not just an ASCI guideline. Non-compliance exposes the developer to both ASCI action and direct regulatory penalty.

Do not make assured return claims (such as “guaranteed 8% annual rental yield”) without the actuarial or contractual basis for the guarantee clearly stated.

What creators must not do: Promote real estate projects in content without the RERA number clearly present. If a brand brief for a property project does not include the RERA registration number, ask for it before publishing. Posting real estate content without this information makes you part of a non-compliant advertisement regardless of whether you knew the number was required.

What the 86% Voluntary Compliance Rate Actually Means

One number from the ASCI report deserves particular attention: 86% overall voluntary compliance. When ASCI flags a violation and contacts the brand or creator, 86% modify or withdraw the content without being formally ordered to do so.

This is actually good news interpreted correctly. It means most brands and creators in India are not malicious actors trying to deceive consumers. They are making mistakes that, once pointed out, they are willing to correct.

The problem is that correction after the fact costs more than prevention. A flagged campaign creates public record of a violation. Modifying content after it has been live for weeks means the compliant version has already run, the reputational cost has been paid, and the brand relationship with the creator is under strain.

The far better outcome is not needing to correct anything because the brief was right, the content was right, and the disclosure was right from the start.

A Pre-Publication Compliance Checklist for Indian Brands and Creators

Use this before any sponsored content goes live.

For Brands

Check Requirement
Category check Is this product category legally permissible for advertising in India?
Claims substantiation Is every performance or results claim in the brief supported by verifiable evidence?
Superlatives Is any “No.1” or “best” claim backed by an independent third-party study?
Health claims Are any health or disease-related claims reviewed by a legal or regulatory specialist?
Disclosure instruction Does the brief include specific ASCI-compliant disclosure language for the creator?
Real estate If property advertising, is the RERA number and project website link included?
Content approval Is there a review step before content goes live to confirm compliance?

For Creators

Check Requirement
Category check Is this brand operating legally in India? Is the category permissible?
Disclosure label Is an approved label (#Ad, #Sponsored, #Collab, #Partnership) at the very start of the caption?
Video disclosure For video content, is there a verbal disclosure at the start of the video?
Claims review Have you reviewed every claim in the brief and verified what you can personally substantiate?
Health and wellness For health products, has the brand provided substantiation documents for all claims?
Regional language If posting in a regional language, is the disclosure in the same language as the content?
Gifted products If the product was received for free, is it disclosed even if no payment was made?

Summary: What the ASCI 2025-26 Report Tells Brands and Creators

Finding Implication
11,581 cases processed, up 21% ASCI monitoring is scaling. More campaigns are being reviewed.
97.3% of violations on digital platforms Instagram and Meta platforms are the primary enforcement focus.
98% of reviewed ads required modification Near-universal non-compliance signals systemic, not exceptional, problems.
76% of Forbes Top 100 creators in violation Scale and reputation do not protect against non-compliance.
54% of influencer violations in legally disallowed categories The highest-risk campaigns are the most obviously avoidable.
88% eventual compliance Most violations are correctable, but prevention is far cheaper.
86% voluntary compliance overall The majority of brands and creators fix issues when informed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What categories generate the most ASCI complaints against influencers in India? Based on the 2025-26 report, illegal betting (54.5%), personal care (16.9%), electronics and consumer durables (7.9%), food and beverages (6.3%), and fashion and lifestyle (4.3%) are the top five categories for influencer violations.

What happens if an influencer is flagged by ASCI in India? ASCI will contact the creator and request modification or withdrawal of the non-compliant content. 88% of influencers complied once contacted. Repeated or severe violations can be referred to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The complaint and outcome are published in ASCI’s public records.

Can a brand be held responsible for an influencer’s non-compliant post? Yes. ASCI holds both the brand and the creator accountable for non-compliant influencer advertising. Brands that brief creators without including compliant disclosure instructions and proper claims substantiation are exposed to ASCI action even if the creator is the one who published the content.

Do disclosure rules apply to gifted products in India? Yes. If a brand sent you a product for free and you post about it, ASCI guidelines require disclosure. The standard applies to any material benefit, not only cash payment. “Gifted by Brand X” alone is not a sufficient disclosure label. Use #Ad, #Gifted, or a combination that clearly communicates the commercial relationship.

What is the ASCI guideline on health claims in influencer content? Health and wellness claims in influencer content must be substantiated by verifiable scientific or clinical evidence. Disease treatment or cure claims are not permissible for food, supplement, or cosmetic products regardless of evidence. Creators should request substantiation documents from brands before including any specific health outcome claim in their content.

Related Articles on Flontic

External resources: ASCI official guidelines and complaints | ASCI Complaints Portal

This article references data from the ASCI Annual Complaints Report April 2025 to March 2026, published by the Advertising Standards Council of India.