Beyond the Hype: India’s AI reckoning for ads and social media

Artificial intelligence rarely malfunctions in a silent manner. The world has been watching headlines pile up in recent weeks: a lawsuit alleging ChatGPT led a teenager to die by suicide; Spotify battling questions over sexually explicit podcasts that threaten advertiser trust; and Meta's chatbots mimicking Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift with flirtatious, sometimes explicit, avatars.

These are not isolated errors made by multinational tech companies; rather, they are indicators of a more serious issue: AI is developing more quickly than the regulations that control it. What was previously touted as a business facilitator and creative tool is now pushing the boundaries of permission, accountability, and brand safety.

The fractures are already apparent in India, where digital advertising and content consumption are rapidly growing. Regulators rely on a mix of consumer protection rules, self-regulatory guidelines, and the IT Act, but none of them are built to deal with deep fakes, artificial intelligence chatbots that can be manipulated, or synthetic endorsements. As international debates intensify, the question now isn't whether India needs an AI law for social media, content, and advertisements, but rather how soon it can create one before confidence is destroyed.

Fragmented Frameworks, Rising Risks

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) Code, the Consumer Protection Act, the Information Technology Act, and the recently passed Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act are currently India's main sources of support. These regulations were never intended for AI-generated content, even though they offer some protections.

“AI in advertising has so far relied on a mix of ministerial advisories, self-regulation, and policy guidelines,” notes Chirag Jain, Associate Partner at DSK Legal. “The approach remains fragmented, and a more unified framework is needed to address accountability, consent, and transparency in AI-generated content.”

The disparities are particularly noticeable in areas where the distinctions between creator, platform, and advertiser are blurred by synthetic authorship, such as deepfake endorsements, algorithmic manipulation, and attribution of liability. India's structure is "reactive, fragmented, and ill-suited for the velocity, scale, and opacity of AI-driven commercial communications," according to Vivek Tiwari, Associate Partner at TARAksh Lawyers and Consultants.

Balancing Brand Safety With Free Expression

The main difficulty continues to be finding the ideal balance between freedom of expression, brand integrity, and consumer safety. Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, notes that "Indian law adopts a principle of outcomes matter, not tools." He continues by saying that companies and advertisers should be held accountable for damaging advertising, regardless of whether the content is created by humans or artificial intelligence. However, regulations should focus on high-risk types of content, including political propaganda or scams, rather than enforcing general prohibitions.

Any AI regulation must be "narrowly tailored" in line with constitutional principles of free speech, according to Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma, Senior Partner at SKV Law Offices. Vague or overbroad regulations run the risk of impeding innovation.

The Case for an AI Code of Ethics

The legal experts agree that India needs an AI advertising code of ethics based on principles, one that requires openness and guards against abuse without stifling creativity. Through measures like algorithm audits, the labelling of AI-generated content, and grievance redressal procedures, Jain promotes "ethics-by-design." Tiwari highlights the legal support for consent and clearance of rights, particularly in relation to celebrity likenesses. Sharma emphasizes that voluntary compliance by itself will not be enough and highlights the necessity of bias detection procedures and required disclosure labels.

Protecting Children and Mental Health

Possibly the most pressing regulatory gap is to vulnerable consumers and children. The DPDP Act does not adequately address the psychological and emotional hazards of AI-driven interactions, even while it establishes standards for parental approval. Jain says, "We may need an AI-specific child rights framework… one that hardwired age-appropriate design, exposure limits, and human oversight."

Sharma emphasizes the need for age-gating and safety audits for AI systems that engage with children, while Tiwari goes farther and calls for an Indian version of the UK's Age-Appropriate Design Code.

Charting India’s AI Future

All of the experts agree that India's current structure is unable to keep up with the disruptive power of AI. According to Aarushi Jain, a partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, "adequacy of laws is not the current challenge, the knowledge and implementation of it is. This gap needs to be fixed."

India must now decide whether to create an AI-specific regulation for advertising and content that fosters trust and encourages innovation, or continue observing global developments before taking its own steps. With the right approach, India has the opportunity to set clear, responsible rules that also fuel digital innovation.