Archive · 25 Aug 2026
SRK, Ajay Devgn Face Notices Over Surrogate Advertising
Some products, such as alcohol and tobacco, cannot be advertised directly in certain situations.
Companies sometimes promote another product with a similar name or image instead.
This is called surrogate advertising.
The Maharashtra FDA says a Vimal Elaichi advertisement may remind viewers of Vimal Pan Masala.
It has therefore sent notices to three actors who appeared in the advertisement.
Critics say these campaigns use glamour and celebrities to make restricted products seem attractive.
Other advertising professionals say adults can understand the message and make their own choices.
The debate is about whether these advertisements should be banned or regulated more strictly.
Maharashtra’s Food and Drug Administration issued show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff.
The notices concern a Vimal Elaichi advertisement that allegedly associates the brand with Vimal Pan Masala.
Experts describe surrogate advertising as a way to promote restricted brands through legal product extensions and lifestyle messaging.
Advertisers use celebrities, music, festivals, sports and social media to preserve brand visibility, recall and cultural relevance.
Industry voices disagree on whether stricter bans or greater consumer responsibility are the better response to surrogate advertising.
- Who
- The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration, actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, and advertising experts Prahlad Kakar and Kopal Naithani.
- What
- The FDA issued show-cause notices over a Vimal Elaichi advertisement, alleging it creates an association with Vimal Pan Masala.
- When
- The action was described as recent; no specific date was provided.
- Where
- Maharashtra, India.
- Why
- The FDA alleges that the advertisement indirectly promotes Vimal Pan Masala, which the article says is prohibited in Maharashtra.
Stricter regulation and ethical concerns
Consumer choice and industry defense
Nature of surrogate advertising
Stricter regulation and ethical concerns
Prahlad Kakar describes it as deceptive and unethical promotion that exploits a legal loophole to keep restricted brands visible.
Consumer choice and industry defense
Kopal Naithani says adults are generally aware of the underlying message and are responsible for making their own choices.
Effect of advertising bans
Stricter regulation and ethical concerns
Critics argue that legal product extensions are created mainly to take advantage of gaps in advertising rules and can make restricted products appear aspirational.
Consumer choice and industry defense
Kakar argues that banning promotion on organized media may push campaigns underground, especially as audiences consume content across social media platforms.
Best policy response
Stricter regulation and ethical concerns
One view is that authorities should close loopholes and address the public-health rationale behind restrictions rather than allowing indirect promotion.
Consumer choice and industry defense
Kakar also argues that policymakers should either ban a product outright or educate consumers and leave informed choices to them, rather than limiting only its advertising.
- Regulator
- Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration
- Actors named in notices
- Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff
- Advertised product
- Vimal Elaichi
- Allegedly associated product
- Vimal Pan Masala
- Core issue
- Whether a legal brand extension functions as surrogate promotion for a prohibited product
- Common techniques
- Celebrity partnerships, music, lifestyle messaging, festivals, sponsorships and social media
- Expert disagreement
- Some experts call surrogate advertising deceptive and unethical, while others emphasize adult consumer choice