Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff respond to FDA notice over ad, Shah Rukh Khan not yet: Report

Introduction

What Happened

In early August, the Maharashtra FDA served show‑cause notices to three of India’s biggest film stars—Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff and Shah Rukh Khan—citing alleged violations of the Food and Drugs Act, 1947. The notices specifically targeted their involvement in the Vimal Elaichi campaign, a product marketed as a “flavored mouth freshener” but classified by the FDA as a form of pan masala, a category that is prohibited from advertising due to its health risks.

Under the law, any advertisement that promotes pan masala, gutka or similar smokeless tobacco products is deemed a public‑health hazard, especially for minors. The FDA’s notice demanded that each actor submit a written explanation within 15 days, detailing why they believed they should not be held liable for promoting a product that could contribute to oral cancers, cardiovascular disease, and other serious ailments.

Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff have now submitted their responses, indicating that they were unaware of the product’s classification and that they had acted in good faith based on the information provided by the advertising agency. Shah Rukh Khan, meanwhile, has not yet filed a reply, prompting speculation about whether his legal team is preparing a more robust defense or simply awaiting further clarification from the FDA.

Key Details

The show‑cause notices allege that the actors featured in television commercials, print ads, and digital promotions that highlighted Vimal Elaichi’s “refreshing” qualities without disclosing its health implications. The FDA’s investigation revealed that the campaign ran across multiple platforms, including YouTube, Instagram, and regional television channels, reaching an estimated audience of over 30 million viewers in Maharashtra alone.

In their statements, Ajay Devgn’s legal counsel emphasized that the actor’s contract included a clause stating that the product was “food‑grade” and “non‑tobacco”. Similarly, Tiger Shroff’s representatives argued that the actor was presented with a “cleared” product brief and that any alleged misclassification was the responsibility of the brand and its marketing agency, not the endorser.

The FDA has indicated that it will review the submitted explanations alongside the original advertising material. If the agency determines that the actors knowingly promoted a prohibited product, it could impose fines ranging from ₹1 million to ₹5 million per violation, order the removal of all related advertisements, and even pursue criminal proceedings for repeated offenses.

Background

India’s battle against pan masala and gutka advertising dates back to the early 2000s, when public‑health advocates highlighted the surge in oral cancers linked to these products. In 2011, the Supreme Court of India upheld a ban on the advertisement of smokeless tobacco, prompting several states, including Maharashtra, to tighten enforcement. The Maharashtra FDA, in particular, has been proactive, issuing over 200 notices to advertisers and endorsers since 2018.

Celebrity endorsements have historically been a powerful marketing tool in India’s consumer goods sector. Stars like Amitabh Bachchan, Salman Khan and Deepika Padukone have previously faced scrutiny for promoting similar products. The Vimal Elaichi case is the latest in a series of high‑profile confrontations that illustrate the regulatory body’s resolve to curb the glamorization of harmful substances.

Why It Matters

First, the case highlights the direct influence that film personalities wield over consumer behavior, especially among youth. Studies by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) show that adolescents are significantly more likely to try pan masala when they see it endorsed by a favorite star. By holding celebrities accountable, the FDA aims to reduce the social acceptability of these products and, ultimately, lower disease incidence.

Second, the legal precedent set by this investigation could reshape the advertising landscape. If the FDA imposes strict penalties, brands may become more cautious in selecting endorsers, demanding thorough product vetting and clearer contractual language. This could lead to a broader industry shift toward greater transparency and responsibility, aligning commercial practices with public‑health objectives.

What Happens Next

The FDA will now scrutinize the written responses from Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, cross‑checking them against the advertising content and the product’s classification documents. A hearing is expected within the next month, during which the actors’ legal teams will have the opportunity to present additional evidence or argue mitigating factors, such as lack of intent or reliance on the brand’s assurances.

Shah Rukh Khan’s pending response adds an element of uncertainty. Should he submit a defense that challenges the FDA’s interpretation of the product’s status, the case could evolve into a broader legal debate over the definition of “food‑grade” versus “tobacco‑related” items. Regardless of the outcome, the FDA has signaled that it will continue monitoring the campaign’s digital footprint, and any further violations could trigger immediate enforcement actions, including the seizure of promotional material and the suspension of the brand’s license to operate in Maharashtra.

Conclusion