Introduction
India’s digital boom has given rise to influencers who wield vast power in shaping opinions, consumer choices, and even policy narratives. However, this influence is often unchecked, leading to misinformation, especially in critical sectors such as health, finance, and law. The chase for engagement and virality fuels a clickbait culture that prioritizes attention over truth, resulting in a widening gap between popularity and responsibility.
As influencers blur the lines between personal opinion and sponsored content, the risks—especially to public safety and trust—are growing. Regulatory bodies like ASCI and SEBI have begun issuing guidelines, and the judiciary has taken a stand in landmark cases. Still, enforcement remains patchy. The real challenge is to evolve a trustworthy, ethical digital culture in the absence of robust accountability frameworks.
Clickbait Culture & High-Risk Misinformation
In the attention economy, creators often prioritize virality over veracity. Algorithms reward sensationalism, encouraging influencers to push boundaries, often in ethically compromised ways. This is especially perilous in high-stakes domains like health, law, and finance, where false claims have tangible, often irreversible consequences.
Health Sector
Clickbait headlines like “how to cure asthma at home” or “natural detox secrets doctors will not tell you” attract views but spread harmful misinformation. These posts often eclipse verified sources, leading to public distrust in legitimate medical advice and real-world harm. In Medical Associations & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2022), the Supreme Court pulled up Patanjali Ayurved for advertisements claiming cures for chronic diseases—like asthma and diabetes—without scientific backing. These ads also disparaged modern medicine. The Court emphasized that influencers and endorsers would bear equal responsibility if they promote such products without verification.
The ruling referenced the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements (2022) and held that:
- Have adequate knowledge or experience.
- Ensure the advertisement does not exploit consumer vulnerabilities.
- Submit a self-declaration confirming compliance before broadcasting.
This case reaffirmed the necessity for due diligence and factual accuracy, especially in the health domain.
Legal Sector
The rise of “legal influencers” has created a grey area between education and unprofessional conduct. In March 2025, the Bar Council of India (BCI) warned against online legal advertising by advocates, citing Rule 36 of the BCI Rules, 2009, which prohibits promotional content by lawyers.
Key Concerns:
- Videos with celebrity endorsements or paid promotional content commodify the legal profession.
- Platforms like JustDial, Sulekha, and Quikr facilitate legal services by unverified individuals—violating the Advocates Act, 1961.
BCI has threatened strict action, including license suspensions, and asked digital platforms to verify legal practitioners. Simplified, misleading content—like claims that FIRs can be quashed instantly or that divorces can be resolved in a week—erodes trust in the legal system. The principle is clear: legal accessibility must never compromise accuracy or ethics.
Financial Sector
“Finfluencers” are reshaping financial discourse online, but not always responsibly. From promising guaranteed returns to oversimplifying investment strategies, these influencers mislead naive investors and promote risky behaviour.
To mitigate risks, SEBI has proposed banning regulated entities from associating with unregistered financial influencers. The goal: prevent unqualified individuals from distorting financial education into click-driven speculation.
SEBI & ASCI Guidelines:
- Mandatory disclosures for paid content.
- Prohibition of misleading, unsubstantiated financial claims.
- Emphasis on registration and verification for content creators in finance.
These interventions aim to ensure financial literacy does not become a façade for speculation or fraud.
Legal & Regulatory Framework
India’s existing legal tools provide some safeguards but lack cohesion and proactive enforcement.
Key Legal Instruments:
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees free speech.
- Article 19(2) allows restrictions in the interest of public order and morality.
- The IT Act, 2000 regulates digital misconduct, including fake news and defamation.
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prohibits misleading advertisements.
- ASCI Guidelines (2022) mandate influencer disclosures and prohibit deceptive practices.
Despite these laws, regulation remains reactive, and jurisdictional fragmentation hampers effective enforcement. Oversight is particularly weak in regional or vernacular content, where platforms face difficulties in monitoring and compliance.
Regulatory bodies are siloed—SEBI, ASCI, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, and state police cyber cells operate independently, making comprehensive monitoring virtually impossible. The need for a centralized grievance redressal and enforcement system is urgent.
De-influencing: A Responsible Countermovement
In response to the clickbait economy, a de-influencing movement is emerging. These creators promote conscious consumerism, debunk hype, and offer critical reviews of over-marketed products. Rather than selling, they advise caution, transparency, and ethical consumption.
In San Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. v. Arpit Mangal (2023), the Delhi High Court upheld a YouTuber’s right to post a fact-based critical review of a protein supplement. Citing free speech, the court dismissed allegations of defamation and trademark infringement. It ruled that:
- Truthful, well-researched critiques are protected speech.
- Companies cannot use litigation to silence legitimate concerns.
- Independent lab tests and evidence-based reviews serve public interest.
This judgment validated consumer review as a form of watchdog journalism, especially in health and nutrition.
However, even de-influencing is susceptible to clickbait-style negativity. Some creators use exaggerated outrage to go viral, mimicking the very tactics they critique. For this movement to be a genuine ethical alternative, it must be rooted in evidence and public good, not mere contrarianism.
The Path Forward
The influence economy demands a shift—from unregulated virality to accountable, transparent content creation. Regulators must go beyond guidelines to enforce standards, especially in life-impacting sectors.
Recommendations:
- An inter-agency body established to monitor, enforce, and penalize digital misinformation across sectors.
- Influencers in health, law, and finance should register with relevant bodies as part of mandatory verification and meet professional standards.
- The Tech companies must integrate compliance checks, flagging mechanisms, and disclosure labels into their algorithms.
- Awareness programs for Influencers must be introduced about legal liabilities for misleading content.
- Enable easier redressal and introduce Public Grievance Portals for consumers misled by digital content.
Conclusion
As influencers gain unprecedented reach, the responsibility to wield it ethically becomes non-negotiable. Misinformation in sectors like health, law, and finance can cause lasting harm. While legal frameworks exist, enforcement is inconsistent and often lacks bite. Meanwhile, public trust continues to erode under the weight of clickbait-driven, unverified, and sometimes dangerous content.
A shift is needed—from chasing clicks to earning trust. By embracing ethics, facts, and accountability, influencers can help build a creator economy that informs, empowers, and protects—rather than misleads.
References
- Medical Associations & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2022) – Supreme Court of India.
- San Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. v. Arpit Mangal (2023) – Delhi High Court.
- Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements (2022), Ministry of Consumer Affairs.
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution
- Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI, BCI Rules, 2009.
- Advocates Act, 1961 – Section on legal practice regulations.
- Information Technology Act, 2000 – Sections on digital content regulation.
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections on misleading ads.
- SEBI Circulars and Finfluencer Restrictions, 2023–2024.
- ASCI Guidelines for Influencers, 2021–2022.
Author: Ms. Deepanjali Jain, Associate, NovoJuris Legal.