The Advertising Standards CCouncil of India (ASCI) recently released the draft guidelines for the responsible labelling of AI content in advertising. The proposed guidelines adopt a risk-based approach, focussing on consumer outcomes rather than regulating the technology itself.
These suggested frameworks also come at a time when advertisers are battling a new challenge – the rise of AI-generated ads that mimic the real thing. Dairy brand Amul found itself in a spot when an ad that looked exactly like its popular topical creative messages was widely circulated last month. The creative looked deceptively real with its signature Amul girl and smart tagline.
Likewise, Dabur had to distance itself from an image of an outdoor hoarding, purportedly for its Hajmola brand, circulated across social media. The visual was a reference to the gas crisis caused by the West Asia conflict, drawing applause and criticism from consumers online.
These incidents are creating new risks for legacy brands, blurring the lines between authentic communication and manufactured content. The core issue is the erosion of trust, says Manisha Kapoor, CEO & secretary general, ASCI. “Once consumers are unable to distinguish between authentic and synthetic brand communication, the credibility of messaging is diluted. From a regulatory lens, deceptive communication, irrespective of origin, runs counter to the ASCI code, which prioritises non-deceptive advertising,” she explains.
To that end, ASCI’s newly proposed guidelines will regard as harmful any advertising that “creates unfulfillable expectations, exploits vulnerable populations, depicts unsafe situations, or replicates a real person’s likeness without consent.”
While these are being presented to the industry and other stakeholders for feedback until June 13, industry leaders are already sounding the alarm about the possible damage that deepfakes and cloned brand visuals can create. According to Siddharth Devnani, co-founder & COO, SoCheers, the damage caused by such advertising is substantial and irreversible. “Consumers do not have the bandwidth to verify each ad that they scroll past through and they default to blanket scepticism that does not discriminate. This also reduces trust in genuine advertising,” he says.
The answer, he says, lies in prompt human intervention: “When a fake surfaces, how fast and clearly a brand responds is the difference between a contained incident and a PR catastrophe.”
Better safe than sorry
Experts say the rampant fakery is encouraging companies to strengthen social listening and rapid response systems to help maintain consumer confidence. Adrine D’mello, associate vice-president, White Rivers Media, says advertisers must address this challenge at two levels – internal control and external disclosure. “Internally, this means tighter approval workflows for AI-generated assets, clear policies on permissible AI usage, and mandatory human oversight before campaigns go live. Externally, disclosure standards are becoming essential. Any use of synthetic voices, digital avatars, or AI-manipulated visuals should be labelled clearly,” says D’mello.
Ambika Sharma, founder & chief strategist, Pulp Strategy notes that provenance tracking, creator disclosure norms, rapid takedown protocols and legal preparedness will become essential. “We are advising brands to strengthen owned ecosystems because trust is easier to defend when audiences know where authentic communication originates. More importantly, brands need consistency in voice and behaviour especially in an AI-heavy ecosystem. Brands that invest early in trust architecture will be better protected,” sums up Sharma.