Vimal Elaichi Ad Puts Bollywood’s Biggest Stars Under the FDA Lens
A familiar Bollywood advertising trio is facing an unfamiliar regulatory spotlight.
Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff have been served show-cause notices by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over their association with a Vimal Elaichi advertisement, with the regulator questioning whether the campaign could amount to indirect or surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala.
The notices put the spotlight on a question that has followed celebrity endorsements of pan masala and related products for years:
When a legal mouth-freshener carries the same branding as a pan masala product, where does advertising end and surrogate promotion begin?
The Maharashtra FDA appears determined to examine precisely that question.
Why Has the FDA Issued the Notices?
According to reports, the FDA has taken objection to the manner in which Vimal Elaichi is promoted and its association with the broader Vimal brand.
The regulator's concern is that consumers may associate the Vimal branding with pan masala, meaning that advertising Vimal Elaichi could potentially reinforce the visibility and recall of the pan masala brand—even if the advertisement itself presents elaichi as the product being promoted.
The FDA has therefore sought explanations from the three actors about their involvement in the campaign and the circumstances under which they agreed to endorse it.
This distinction is central to the case.
The issue is not simply whether elaichi is a lawful food product. The bigger question is whether the branding, presentation and overall communication of the advertisement indirectly promote a product whose advertising is restricted.
What Does the Notice Ask the Actors?
The show-cause notices reportedly seek extensive information and supporting documents from the celebrities.
Among other things, the FDA has sought details concerning their endorsement agreements, campaign brief, advertiser and advertising agency, payment arrangements and the platforms on which the advertisement was published or broadcast.
The actors have also reportedly been asked to provide information about the period for which the campaign ran and the steps taken by them or their representatives before entering into the endorsement arrangement.
In other words, the regulator appears to be looking beyond the advertisement itself.
It wants to understand how the endorsement was structured and what the celebrities knew about the brand and product they were promoting.
The Bigger Question: Is It Elaichi or Surrogate Advertising?
This is where the controversy becomes particularly significant for India's advertising industry.
Surrogate advertising generally involves promoting a product or brand through another product or communication when direct advertising of the original product is restricted.
In this case, the FDA is examining whether Vimal Elaichi is being promoted as a standalone product or whether the advertisement also helps maintain consumer recall of the Vimal Pan Masala brand.
The distinction could have significant implications.
If regulators establish that the campaign effectively functions as indirect promotion of pan masala, it could raise questions not only for the brand but also for the celebrities, agencies and other parties involved in the campaign.
Maharashtra's Food-Safety Action Adds Another Layer
The notices come against the backdrop of Maharashtra's restrictions concerning certain pan masala and tobacco/nicotine-related products.
The FDA has invoked provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, including provisions concerning misleading advertisements.
Reports have also cited Section 24, which places restrictions on misleading food advertising, and Section 53, which provides for penalties relating to misleading advertisements.
The FDA has additionally referred to the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018.
The regulatory framework makes the case particularly relevant to the food and beverage advertising industry because it raises the question of how far responsibility extends when a celebrity endorses a product that is closely associated with another restricted category.
What Happens to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff Now?
The notices are show-cause notices, meaning the three actors have not been declared guilty.
They have been given an opportunity to explain their position and submit the requested information and documents.
They may also seek a personal hearing through themselves or an authorised representative.
The FDA will consider their responses before determining whether further regulatory action is warranted.
That distinction is important.
A notice is the beginning of a regulatory proceeding—not a final finding of wrongdoing.
Why This Could Become a Landmark Celebrity Advertising Case
The Vimal controversy is bigger than three Bollywood stars.
India's celebrity advertising industry has long wrestled with the question of whether celebrities should bear responsibility for understanding the products and brands they endorse.
The Vimal case could push that debate into a new territory.
If the regulator takes the position that brand association itself can create a surrogate advertising problem, companies may need to rethink how they use the same brand identity across different product categories.
Celebrities and their agencies, meanwhile, could face greater pressure to conduct due diligence before signing endorsement agreements.
For the food industry, this could be an especially important development.
Because the question isn't simply:
“Is the product being advertised legal?”
It is:
“What product—and what brand—is the advertisement actually making consumers remember?”
And that may ultimately determine where the Maharashtra FDA draws the line between Vimal Elaichi advertising and surrogate pan masala promotion.
A Previous Vimal Controversy
This is not the first time Vimal advertising involving the three actors has attracted regulatory attention.
A separate case in 2025 involved proceedings before the Jaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission concerning claims made in a Vimal Pan Masala advertisement.
That matter should not be confused with the current Maharashtra FDA proceedings, which specifically concern the Vimal Elaichi campaign and the regulator's concerns over possible indirect promotion.
The Road Ahead
For now, the spotlight is firmly on Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff—and on how they respond to the FDA's questions.
But the eventual outcome could have consequences far beyond these three celebrities.
It could influence how food brands, advertising agencies, celebrity managers and influencers approach endorsements involving brand extensions connected to restricted products.
The Vimal Elaichi case may therefore become less about one advertisement and more about a fundamental question for India's advertising industry: how far can a brand stretch its identity before a legal product starts looking like a surrogate advertisement for a restricted one?