Broadcasters seek protection from third-party ad claims under proposed licence rules

India’s broadcasters have urged the government to protect television channels from regulatory action over third-party advertising claims they cannot independently verify. They warned that linking compliance with the Advertising Code to licence renewal could expose broadcasters to disproportionate penalties and put advertising revenues at risk. 

The industry has sought a clear distinction between broadcasters’ responsibility to exercise due diligence before airing advertisements and advertisers’ obligation to substantiate claims about their products and services under the proposed broadcasting authorisation rules.

The concerns centre on the revised draft broadcasting authorisation rules, particularly Rule 16, which makes compliance with the two codes a condition of authorisation, and Rule 14, which links renewal to violations. Broadcasters argue that the substantive accuracy of commercial claims should remain the responsibility of advertisers, manufacturers and service providers, who are better placed to substantiate them.

“Broadcasters are expected to exercise reasonable diligence before carrying an advertisement, but they cannot be expected to independently audit every product claim, technical specification or commercial representation made by an advertiser. The responsibility needs to be proportionate to the information and control available to each participant in the advertising chain,” said a senior broadcasting executive, requesting anonymity.

Also Read: News TV advertising decline eases to 7% in Jan-Jul 2026: TAM AdEx

Uncertainty over BARC continuity threatens wider M&E industry, from advertising to TV jobs

Advertising claims and broadcaster liability

Broadcasters say they can check whether advertisements meet applicable broadcast requirements and identify the principal advertiser or agency, but may not have access to product testing, technical documentation, clinical evidence or other material needed to verify every claim.

They fear that a channel could face regulatory action over an advertiser’s claim even after conducting reasonable compliance checks. This could make continued authorisation vulnerable to disputes over information that broadcasters neither originate nor control.

“Advertising is a shared ecosystem involving the brand, agency and broadcaster, but the parties do not have the same access to information. If a broadcaster has conducted the required checks and can identify the advertiser responsible for the claim, it should not automatically face the same consequences as the entity that originated or substantiated that claim,” said another senior broadcaster.

The sector has sought a distinction between due diligence on the suitability of advertisements for broadcast and responsibility for substantiating their claims. Drawing on the principles underlying the safe-harbour framework under the Information Technology Act, broadcasters want the rules to recognise their limited ability to independently verify third-party commercial representations.

They have asked that such claims should not, by themselves, trigger adverse action against authorisation or renewal where a broadcaster has fulfilled its applicable obligations.

Five-breach threshold raises concerns

The proposed renewal framework has also drawn objections over a threshold of five breaches during an authorisation period. Broadcasters say the draft does not clearly define a breach, specify the period over which violations would be counted or establish whether a finding must attain finality after appellate remedies are exhausted.

Without safeguards, violations accumulated over a ten-year authorisation period could affect renewal even where a channel has subsequently improved its compliance systems and governance.

Broadcasters want renewal decisions to account for the gravity of a violation, the time elapsed, corrective action and the channel’s subsequent compliance record. They have also sought to exclude minor, administrative or remedied defaults, as well as breaches already penalised under Schedule 4.

Proposed Rule 26(12), which incorporates Rules 17 to 21 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, as terms of authorisation, has raised concerns about overlapping proceedings for the same grievance.

The sector has argued that findings under industry self-regulatory bodies, including the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) and the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC), should not automatically count towards disqualification. These bodies have their own grievance-handling and remedial mechanisms, broadcasters say, and an open-ended definition of breaches could result in disproportionate consequences.

“An advertising complaint and a decision affecting a channel’s ability to continue operating are fundamentally different in their consequences. A proportionate framework should distinguish between a minor or remediable compliance issue and a serious, established violation, rather than allow a numerical threshold to determine the outcome,” said a third senior broadcasting executive.

Regulatory uncertainty may affect advertising plans

Broadcasters have also questioned subjective expressions in the codes, including “good taste”, “half-truths” and a “snobbish attitude”. They argue that linking such standards to renewal could encourage excessive caution in programming and advertising decisions, potentially limiting creative experimentation.

The sector has cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) on vague and overbroad restrictions on speech, arguing that regulatory provisions must remain within the permissible limits of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The commercial implications could extend beyond individual channels. Non-renewal could disrupt established audience relationships, advertising inventory and campaign commitments, while undermining investments in infrastructure, employees and content.

Broadcasters argue that the consequences of non-renewal are significantly more severe than refusing permission at the outset, making clear standards and proportionate enforcement essential for long-term commercial planning.

Broadcasters seek safeguards

The sector has urged the government to delink Programme Code and Advertising Code compliance from authorisation renewal. If the linkage is retained, it wants only violations that have attained finality after appellate remedies are exhausted to be considered, alongside a reasonable look-back period.

Broadcasters have also sought the exclusion of violations that have been stayed or set aside, and consideration of mitigating circumstances and subsequent compliance records.

On advertising, their central demand is that liability should reflect each participant’s role and ability to verify claims. They argue that broadcasters should remain accountable for reasonable due diligence without automatically bearing the consequences of claims that advertisers are best placed to substantiate.

The sector has also pointed to existing grievance-redressal and self-regulatory mechanisms, including ASCI and BCCC, arguing that strengthening these frameworks would better support the principle of “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance” than making routine content disputes grounds for jeopardising a channel’s authorisation.

The final rules, broadcasters say, need to balance regulatory accountability with certainty for television operators and advertisers, ensuring that the renewal process does not become a disproportionate commercial risk for violations beyond a channel’s reasonable control.