India has no dedicated AI law, yet recent regulatory moves aim to curb synthetically generated content in advertising. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has amended the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, while the Advertising Standards Council of India released draft guidelines for labeling such content.
Scope of the draft guidelines
The draft guidelines define synthetically generated content (SGC) as any artificially created, modified, or materially altered material, including deepfakes, AI‑generated voices, and virtual influencers. They align with the IT Rules’ amendments, which also target synthetic information, but broaden the definition to cover minor enhancements that the original rules excluded.
ASCI proposes a three‑tier risk framework. High‑risk ads—such as fabricated endorsements or unauthorised deepfakes—are prohibited even if labeled. Medium‑risk ads, which include virtual influencers or AI‑generated likenesses, must carry a disclaimer per the council’s standards. Low‑risk ads, involving minor enhancements, do not require any labeling.
Enforcement and industry impact
Non‑compliance would be actionable under the ASCI Code for Self‑Regulation of Advertising Content. Although the code lacks statutory force, the body’s self‑regulatory role is widely accepted, and it has a history of active enforcement. Consequently, adhering to its standards is often treated as essential for advertisers.
Labeling requirements are not new; firms like Meta already label AI‑generated material. However, the draft could push brands to establish review mechanisms and ensure that agencies, influencers, and other partners share responsibility for compliance and liability.
Related: Baker McKenzie advises Vietnam bank on $550m offshore financing
Unlike the IT rules, which exclude minor edits from the definition of synthetic information, the draft treats these as low‑risk SGC. The practical effect remains similar, but advertisers must understand the differing rationales when determining disclosure obligations.
Specific consent is required for using an individual’s likeness, and merely affixing a label may not satisfy the council’s assessment. It may evaluate the substantive content of an ad regardless of disclosures, meaning misleading claims could still trigger action.
The draft guidelines intersect with broader consumer protection. The Central Consumer Protection Authority has asked the council to forward ads that breach the ASCI Code and potentially violate the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. While the authority has not announced a dedicated AI framework, the new guidelines may invite closer scrutiny and future regulatory measures.
Overall, the shift signals increased accountability for AI‑generated advertising. Brands are advised to treat compliance as a risk‑management exercise rather than a simple labeling task, ensuring that the use of synthetic content does not mislead consumers.
