Social-media influencers have become a major force in modern advertising. Through platforms such as Instagram, YouTube and short-video applications, influencers promote skincare, clothing, food, financial services, educational courses and countless other products to audiences that often trust their opinions more than conventional advertisements. Their influence is particularly powerful because promotional content is frequently presented as a personal recommendation, review, tutorial or everyday lifestyle post rather than as an obvious advertisement.

This development raises an important consumer-law question: can an influencer be held responsible when they promote a fake product? The expression “fake product” may refer to a counterfeit item, a product that does not match its advertised quality or composition, a defective product, or a product sold through false claims and concealment of material facts. For example, an influencer may claim that a skincare product gives guaranteed results, promote a counterfeit branded item as genuine, or endorse a health product without checking whether its claims are scientifically supported.

In India, influencers are not outside the legal framework merely because they are independent content creators. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA 2019”), the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, the Endorsement Know-Hows issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (“CCPA”), and the Advertising Standards Council of India (“ASCI”) Influencer Advertising Guidelines together create a framework for accountability. These rules show that an influencer may be held responsible where their endorsement is misleading, where they fail to exercise due diligence, or where they conceal a commercial relationship with the brand.

Therefore, influencers can be held responsible for promoting fake products, though their liability should not be automatic in every case. The degree of responsibility must depend upon their knowledge, the nature of the representation, the precautions taken by them, and the harm caused to consumers.

Meaning of a Fake or Misleading Product Promotion

A product need not be physically counterfeit for its promotion to be legally problematic. Under consumer law, a product advertisement may be misleading if it falsely describes the product, makes an untrue guarantee regarding its quality or performance, creates an incorrect impression, or deliberately hides important information.

For instance, an influencer who promotes an ordinary cosmetic product as “clinically proven to remove acne in three days” without evidence may be making a misleading claim. Similarly, promoting a product as “original” despite it being counterfeit, or advertising a supplement as completely safe without checking its ingredients and approvals, may amount to deceptive promotion.

The CPA 2019 defines a “misleading advertisement” under Section 2(28). It includes an advertisement that falsely describes a product or service, gives a false guarantee, conveys an express or implied representation that would amount to an unfair trade practice, or deliberately conceals important information. The definition is broad enough to include advertisements made through electronic media, the internet and websites. Thus, paid influencer posts, videos, stories
and affiliate links may fall within its scope.

Applicable Laws

1. Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The CPA 2019 is the principal statute governing misleading advertisements in India. It modernised consumer protection law by expressly recognising online and electronic transactions. A consumer who buys goods through an online platform, social-media link, direct selling arrangement or e-commerce website is protected under the Act.

Section 2(18) defines “endorsement” in relation to an advertisement. It includes a message, verbal statement, demonstration, or depiction of the name, image, signature or identifiable characteristics of a person that makes consumers believe that the advertisement reflects that person’s opinion, experience or finding. An influencer’s “I use this every day” video or product review may therefore amount to an endorsement.

Section 2(28) defines a misleading advertisement. This is especially relevant where influencers exaggerate product benefits, hide risks, fail to disclose sponsorship, or promote goods that are not genuine. The law is concerned not only with direct lies but also with omissions that mislead consumers.

Section 21 gives the CCPA power to act against false or misleading advertisements. Where, after investigation, the CCPA finds that an advertisement is false or misleading and harms consumer interests, it may direct the trader, manufacturer, advertiser, publisher or endorser to discontinue or modify the advertisement. The CCPA may also impose a penalty of up to ₹10 lakh for a first contravention and up to ₹50 lakh for a subsequent contravention. An endorser may further be
prohibited from endorsing products or services for up to one year for the first violation and up to three years for subsequent violations.

However, the Act provides an important protection to endorsers. An endorser is not liable if they have exercised due diligence to verify the truthfulness of the claims made in the advertisement. This defence prevents unfair punishment of an influencer who reasonably relied on credible evidence, certifications and documents supplied by the brand. At the same time, it prevents influencers from blindly promoting products merely for payment.

2. Central Consumer Protection Authority Guidelines, 2022

The Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 were issued by the CCPA under the CPA 2019. They apply to advertisements across all media, including digital and social media.

The Guidelines require advertisements to be truthful, non-misleading and capable of substantiation. Advertisers must possess adequate evidence to support claims made in an advertisement. An endorsement must reflect the genuine opinion, belief, finding or experience of the endorser. An influencer should not make claims that they do not genuinely believe or that are unsupported by evidence.

The Guidelines are especially significant where advertisements target children or make healthrelated claims. They prohibit exaggerated claims that create unrealistic expectations among children and require health or nutritional claims to be adequately and scientifically substantiated.

Thus, an influencer promoting a fake weight-loss product, false educational guarantee, unsafe cosmetic product or counterfeit item may attract regulatory action if the promotion misleads consumers.

3. Endorsement Know-Hows for Celebrities, Influencers and Virtual Influencers

In 2023, the Department of Consumer Affairs issued Endorsement Know-Hows for celebrities, influencers and virtual influencers. These guidelines emphasise that influencers must disclose any “material connection” with a brand. A material connection includes a relationship that may affect the credibility of the endorsement, such as payment, free products, discounts, gifts, family relationships or business associations.

Influencers are expected to use clear disclosures such as “advertisement,” “ad,” “sponsored,” “collaboration” or “paid partnership.” The disclosure must be prominent and should not be hidden among multiple hashtags or placed where consumers are unlikely to notice it.

The purpose is to ensure that consumers understand when content is advertising rather than an independent review. If an influencer promotes a fake product while pretending that the post is a genuine personal recommendation, the deception becomes more serious because the consumer has been denied essential information about the commercial relationship.

4. ASCI Influencer Advertising Guidelines

ASCI is a self-regulatory body, and its guidelines do not have the same statutory force as the CPA 2019. Nevertheless, the ASCI Influencer Advertising Guidelines for Digital Media are important ethical and industry standards.

These guidelines require influencers to make promotional content clearly identifiable as advertising. They also require influencers to ensure that claims made in their content are truthful, capable of substantiation and not misleading. ASCI has recognised that digital advertising often blurs the line between personal content and commercial promotion; clear disclosure is therefore necessary for informed consumer choice.

Although ASCI itself cannot impose statutory penalties like the CCPA, non-compliance may lead to complaints, removal or modification of content, reputational harm and stronger regulatory scrutiny. The ASCI framework supplements the legal duties under the CPA 2019.

Judicial Analysis

There is no single landmark Supreme Court decision specifically deciding the liability of socialmedia influencers for fake-product promotions. However, Indian courts have repeatedly emphasised that advertising must not deceive consumers.

In Horlicks Ltd. v. Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., the Delhi High Court considered comparative advertising and reiterated that commercial speech cannot cross into misleading representation. A trader may praise its own goods, but it cannot make false statements or unfairly disparage a competitor’s product. The principle is relevant to influencers because an influencer’s promotional statement cannot be defended merely as marketing if it makes objectively false claims about a product.

Similarly, in Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., the courts considered the limits of comparative advertising and the importance of truthful commercial representation. These cases establish that advertising freedom is not unlimited; it must remain fair and should not mislead the ordinary consumer.

The Supreme Court’s observations in Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission are also relevant. The Court recognised that advertisements must be assessed from the perspective of the consumer and that deceptive trade practices can harm consumer interests. The focus is not merely on the advertiser’s intention but on the impression created in the mind of an ordinary consumer.

A recent enforcement example is the CCPA’s action against misleading slimming-treatment advertisements. The authority imposed a penalty on VLCC Limited after finding that advertisements created misleading impressions about immediate weight-loss results. This demonstrates that health and wellness claims require accuracy and evidence, particularly because consumers may make important personal decisions based on advertisements.

These principles can be applied to influencers. If an influencer’s content gives consumers a false impression that a fake product is genuine, effective, safe or personally used by the influencer, the influencer may be treated as an endorser under the CPA 2019.

Arguments for Holding Influencers Responsible

First, influencers profit from their audience’s trust. Their influence is their commercial asset, and they should not be allowed to use that trust without responsibility. If a consumer buys a product because a trusted influencer claims it is genuine or effective, the influencer has played a direct role in the transaction.

Second, influencer advertising can be more persuasive than traditional advertisements. Followers may view an influencer as relatable and authentic. This makes hidden sponsorships and fake reviews particularly harmful.

Third, holding influencers accountable encourages due diligence. Influencers should ask brands for product details, testing reports, licences, certifications, ingredient lists and evidence supporting advertised claims. They should also avoid promoting products that they have not used where they imply personal experience.

Fourth, accountability protects vulnerable consumers, including children and young people. Influencer content often reaches audiences who may not easily distinguish between advertising and ordinary social-media content.

Arguments Against Automatic Liability

Despite these reasons, influencers should not be made automatically liable for every defective product. The manufacturer, seller and advertiser usually possess greater information about the product’s composition, supply chain and safety. An influencer may not have technical expertise to independently test every product.

For this reason, the due-diligence defence under Section 21 is necessary. Liability should arise where an influencer knew, ought reasonably to have known, or failed to take reasonable steps to verify the claims. A small creator who receives forged documents from a brand and reasonably relies on them should not be treated in the same way as a major influencer who promotes a suspicious product without any inquiry.

The law must therefore distinguish between innocent error and reckless or dishonest promotion.

Reasoned Legal Opinion

Influencers should be held responsible for promoting fake products when their conduct contributes to consumer deception. The correct standard should be one of reasonable due diligence, not strict liability.

An influencer should verify the identity and legitimacy of the brand, seek evidence for major claims, avoid making personal-use claims unless true, disclose paid relationships clearly, and refuse promotions involving unrealistic promises. Greater scrutiny should apply to products involving health, finance, children, food, cosmetics and education because false claims in these fields can cause serious harm.

Where an influencer knowingly promotes a counterfeit or fake product, liability should be strict and substantial. Where the influencer is reckless, ignores obvious warning signs, hides sponsorship or repeats unverified claims, penalties under Section 21 should follow. In addition to regulatory penalties, consumers may seek remedies against the manufacturer, seller and other responsible parties through consumer-dispute mechanisms.

However, where an influencer can prove genuine due diligence and lack of knowledge, liability should be reduced or avoided. This balanced approach respects both consumer rights and fairness to content creators.

Conclusion

Influencers can be held responsible for promoting fake products in India. The CPA 2019 expressly covers endorsements and misleading advertisements, while the CCPA has authority to order discontinuance, impose monetary penalties and prohibit endorsers from making future endorsements. The 2022 CCPA Guidelines, Endorsement Know-Hows and ASCI Guidelines further require truthful claims, proper disclosure and responsible advertising.

The law does not demand that every influencer become a laboratory expert. It does, however, require them to act responsibly before lending their name, image and credibility to a product. When influencers knowingly promote fake products, conceal paid relationships or fail to exercise reasonable due diligence, they should face legal consequences. Such accountability is essential to protect consumers and maintain trust in the growing digital marketplace.