Celebrity endorsements can give a product instant visibility and credibility. But when an advertisement is accused of making misleading claims, promoting a disputed product or being linked to a troubled company, the celebrity at the centre of the campaign can also face regulatory or legal scrutiny.
On August 16, 2026, Maharashtra’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over their appearances in Vimal Elaichi advertisements.
The regulator says the campaign may amount to indirect or surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, whose manufacture, sale and distribution are prohibited in Maharashtra. The actors have been asked to explain their roles and remove related promotional content from social media within 15 days, according to current reports.
Over the years, several Bollywood stars have found themselves named in complaints, court proceedings or regulatory action over advertisements. However, there is an important distinction between being issued a notice, being named in an FIR and being found legally liable.
Here are seven cases that show how celebrity endorsements have sometimes crossed into legal and regulatory territory.
1. Maggi Row: Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit And Preity Zinta
The 2015 Maggi controversy brought Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit and Preity Zinta into legal trouble after concerns were raised about lead and other substances in Nestlé India’s instant noodles.
In June 2015, a Muzaffarpur court directed police to register an FIR against the three actors, along with two Nestlé executives, after a lawyer alleged that he had fallen ill after consuming Maggi.
The complaint invoked several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and provisions concerning adulterated or harmful food. Police subsequently registered the FIR. A separate Madhya Pradesh court later dismissed a petition seeking an FIR against the actors.
2. Shah Rukh Khan And Fair & Handsome
Shah Rukh Khan’s endorsement of Emami’s Fair & Handsome cream also became the subject of a consumer dispute.
Delhi consumer Nikhil Jain alleged that advertisements featuring Khan had influenced him to purchase the product after claims that it could make men’s skin fairer within three weeks. The consumer forum initially ruled against Emami in 2015, finding the advertising claim to constitute an unfair trade practice.
The case did not end there. Emami appealed, and the Delhi State Consumer Commission later dealt with the matter. In a development reported in 2024, the company was ordered to pay ₹15 lakh in the long-running dispute, comprising ₹14.5 lakh to the Delhi State Consumer Welfare Fund and ₹50,000 as compensation to Jain, along with litigation costs.
The proceedings primarily concerned the company and its advertising claims, rather than establishing criminal liability against Shah Rukh Khan.
3. Genelia D’Souza And A Realty Dispute
In 2012, Genelia D’Souza was drawn into a dispute involving Anjaniputra Infrastructure, a Hyderabad-based real estate company for which she had appeared as a brand ambassador.
A customer alleged that he had invested in the company’s housing project but did not receive the promised property. The complainant argued that Genelia’s endorsement had given buyers confidence in the project.
Police initially registered an FIR against the company’s directors without including Genelia. The complainant challenged her exclusion, following which the Andhra Pradesh High Court issued notice to the actor and asked her to explain why her name should not be included in the FIR.
4. Anil Kapoor And The MHADA Advertisement
In 2016, Anil Kapoor faced legal scrutiny over an advertisement for real estate developer Ekta World.
The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) objected to advertisements claiming that the developer offered homes in Virar and Nashik at prices lower than MHADA’s. The authority issued a legal notice to Kapoor as well as the developer, arguing that its name had been used in the campaign with allegedly false and unauthorised information.
MHADA subsequently said it planned to pursue a defamation case against Kapoor and the developer after saying they had not adequately responded to its notice. The developer disputed MHADA’s allegations and maintained that its claims were valid.
The case therefore concerned the advertising claims and the use of MHADA’s name, rather than a finding that Kapoor had committed fraud.
5. Deepika Padukone And Kellogg’s Special K
Deepika Padukone’s association with Kellogg’s Special K became a case study in how advertising claims can attract scrutiny from the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI).
ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council examined the Special K campaign and found several claims misleading, including the way the product’s protein and fibre content was presented and the implication that eating the product could help consumers manage their weight. The council also found issues with disclaimers and the way celebrity-endorsed statements were used in the advertisement.
The episode did not result in a criminal case against Padukone. Instead, it illustrates the role of advertising self-regulation in challenging claims made in celebrity-led campaigns.
6. Govinda And The Sandhi Sudha Plus Advertisement
In 2012, Govinda came under scrutiny from Maharashtra’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over advertisements for Sandhi Sudha Plus, an oil promoted for relief from pain and joint problems.
The FDA filed complaints at police stations concerning advertisements for products including Sandhi Sudha Plus and sought action against manufacturers, scriptwriters and actors involved in promoting them under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act. Govinda’s name appeared in complaints relating to the Sandhi Sudha Plus advertisement.
Govinda later visited the FDA to understand why his name had surfaced and said he was unaware of the relevant legal provisions. He also assured the regulator that he would speak to the manufacturer about withdrawing the advertisement.
Contemporary reports described the product as making claims about pain relief. Claims that the advertisement definitively promised to permanently cure arthritis or joint degradation are not sufficiently supported by the sources reviewed and have therefore been excluded.
7. Ranbir Kapoor And Farhan Akhtar’s AskMe Controversy
In September 2015, reports emerged that an FIR had been registered in Lucknow against Ranbir Kapoor and Farhan Akhtar over their alleged promotion of an online shopping platform.
A complainant alleged that he had paid ₹29,999 for a television that was not delivered and argued that the actors’ promotional campaigns had encouraged consumers to use the website. Contemporary reports said the complaint invoked Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
But there was an important clarification. ASKME and ASKMEBazaar Group subsequently said no FIR had been registered naming Ranbir and Farhan, calling reports to that effect factually incorrect. The company also clarified that Ranbir was the brand ambassador for ASKME.com and had not represented ASKMEBazaar.
Ranbir also publicly distanced himself from AskMeBazaar, saying he had checked with his team and was not associated with the company.
What These Cases Show
These cases span more than a decade and involve very different forms of scrutiny, from consumer complaints and court-directed FIRs to ASCI findings and regulatory notices.
The distinction matters. A celebrity receiving a notice or being named in an FIR does not, by itself, establish guilt. At the same time, celebrity endorsements can put public figures closer to consumer-protection and advertising disputes when campaigns make specific claims or lend their credibility to products and services.
The issue remains relevant today. In August 2026, Maharashtra’s FDA issued show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over a Vimal Elaichi advertisement, alleging that it could amount to indirect promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, whose sale and distribution are prohibited in the state. The actors have been given time to respond, and the regulator’s action remains at the notice stage.
For celebrities and brands alike, the broader lesson is not that every controversial advertisement leads to liability. It is that what a celebrity endorses, what the advertisement claims and how those claims are substantiated can matter long after the commercial leaves the screen.
Also Read: WhatsApp Pay Doubles UPI Transactions To 168 Million, Moves Ahead Of CRED And Amazon Pay
