Wok Tok, Veeba’s newest ‘better-for-you’ instant noodle brand in its recent full-page ad in Bombay Times proclaimed, ‘Two minutes with you taught us we could do better.’ No competitor was mentioned, but the reference was unmistakable.
When Dabur launched its toothpaste campaign earlier this year, boldly urging consumers to pick Swadeshi over American rival Colgate, the ad ran quietly, escaping much scrutiny. But when Patanjali claimed its Chyawanprash outperformed Dabur’s, the Delhi High Court swiftly intervened, calling the ad misleading and ordering corrective measures.
Even with the best intentions, comparative advertising can still spiral into legal disputes. For corporations, protecting consumer trust is non-negotiable. Visage Lines Personal Care, which owns Bombay Shaving Company, has agreed to remove an Instagram reel promoting its OmniBlade after Philips moved the Delhi High Court, alleging the reel made ‘misleading and untrue claims’ about Philips’ OneBlade trimmer.
A Philips spokesperson explains the rationale, “At Philips, protecting consumer trust is central to everything we do. When we saw disparaging claims being made in a social media reel by Bombay Shaving Company, we moved the Delhi High Court to address the issue. Following our action, the reel has since been taken down.”
For Philips, the matter was not just about competition, but about defending integrity, “This outcome underlines an important principle: competition is healthy, but it must be fair. Misleading narratives do not serve consumers or the industry,” says the spokesperson.
Cases like these raise an important question, where exactly is the line between fair play and foul in advertising? Comparative advertising in India is legally permitted, but only to a certain extent. Brands are allowed to highlight their strengths against rivals, provided the comparison is factual, fair, and not disparaging.
Aazmeen Kasad, a practicing corporate lawyer specialising in advertising and media laws since over 25 years and ex-CCC, ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India) states that when done correctly, comparative advertising is actually healthy for the market, “Comparative advertising is actually beneficial to consumers as long as it provides a factually correct comparison in all aspects. It should not be a distorted and selective comparison of facts that provide an untrue impression in the mind of the consumer of the product advertised and the product compared with.”
But the same tool can backfire if brands slip into distortion or ridicule. As Kasad puts it, trust is ultimately the currency of advertising, “Healthy competition requires truthful and a fair portrayal of all the facts, even as one resorts to comparative advertising, for the consumer to make an informed choice. On the other hand, disparaging another brand falsely will actually harm the brand doing so, because it will lose the consumer trust in the long run.”
The contrast between Dabur’s jab at Colgate and Patanjali’s swipe at Dabur highlights another reality: often, whether an ad gets pulled depends less on regulators and more on who chooses to take offense.
Kasad is clear that there’s no selective enforcement by the judiciary; instead, it’s the act of filing a complaint that triggers scrutiny. “The Judiciary acts on cases filed by either consumer activists, consumers, industry bodies or if an intra-industry complaint is filed. If no case was filed in respect of a certain comparative advertisement, it continues to run till a party files a complaint or case against it,” she says. That’s where the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) often steps in as the industry’s first checkpoint.
Put simply, a comparative claim may go unnoticed unless someone raises an objection. But the moment a rival feels targeted, legal fireworks can follow. That’s why Patanjali’s chyawanprash claim drew immediate backlash from Dabur, while Dabur’s toothpaste ad was allowed to pass.
Between advertisers and courts stands ASCI, which has long positioned itself as the first filter for disputes, especially when competitors cry foul.
Kasad points out its wide influence, “Chapter IV of ASCI’s Code on self-regulation specifically deals with comparative advertising. ASCI, as a self-regulatory body which has been regulating ads for 39 years commands respect amongst not just a majority of the advertisers but also across the media – both traditional and digital,” she says.
Its rulings carry enough weight to get ads pulled off television or print. But unlike courts, ASCI cannot impose damages. That difference is crucial, says Medha Banta, Senior Associate - Media and Entertainment Law, Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys, “ASCI acts as a self-regulatory watchdog. Its rulings aren’t legally binding like a court’s, but they hold persuasive value and carry weight with broadcasters and advertisers. Many disputes get resolved at that stage itself. However, if challenged, the courts have the final authority.”
Yet, even with ASCI’s oversight, the legal boundaries remain fuzzy — and that’s partly by design. This layered system means brands may get an early warning through ASCI, but the real financial and reputational risks emerge only once a case escalates to court.
So, does the law give advertisers enough clarity?
Banta suggests that the current ambiguity may be deliberate, leaving flexibility for interpretation but also exposing brands to uncertainty, “The law does leave a certain amount of ambiguity, and in some ways that’s deliberate. A rigid framework might curb creativity, while flexibility allows case-by-case decisions. However, from a business perspective, that ambiguity often translates into uncertainty and litigation risk.”
This ‘deliberate ambiguity’ means Indian advertisers have more creative leeway than their global peers but also face a greater risk of missteps. Comparative advertising is a global phenomenon, and different regions have evolved distinct approaches.
Medha Banta explains that India could benefit from looking abroad, “India can take lessons from the US, which encourages comparative advertising so long as it’s truthful, and from the EU, where there are clear parameters for what counts as fair comparison. Both approaches prioritise consumer interest while safeguarding fair competition.”
In markets like the US and EU, advertisers operate within clearer boundaries, they know exactly how far they can go, even as they still push the limits. India, meanwhile, depends on case-by-case rulings and precedent, which leaves room for both creativity and confusion. While lawyers argue over legality, creative teams face a different challenge — how to make a comparison that entertains, not antagonise.
Kshitij Kaushik, Founder, The Germ, recalls working on smartphone campaigns in the sub-10k category where playful digs were almost unavoidable, “With very little differentiation (features were more or less the same), we had to sometimes take playful jabs at competition. The trick was to never call them out directly, and instead play on our brand’s own strengths rather than highligting the other brand’s weaknesses. It’s a bit like comedy, you punch up,
not down.”
The most important boundary is showing respect to consumers. An ad should never belittle the choices people make. If buyers of a rival brand feel mocked, winning them over becomes nearly impossible. The safer approach is to highlight your own strengths rather than taking jabs at the competitor’s customers.
“In most cases, comparative advertising gives the brand a distinct superiority as a product over other products in the category. For low or medium involvement categories where consumers aren’t thinking too much about the product or just keep trying new products, comparative claims give a clear reason to shift,” says Pragati Rana, Head of Originals, Regional Creative Officer - West and Founding Partner, tgthr.
It gives brands differentiation, and consumers an assurance. I have often seen it in FMCG categories like health drinks, toothpastes, detergents.
Arvind Krishnan, CEO of Manjha, agrees that evidence and entertainment must go hand in hand. “Don’t punch without evidence. Don’t ridicule the consumer. Don’t bore the world while doing it. If you’re going to take a swing, make sure it entertains, otherwise, no one’s listening,” he says.
Comparative work must not only be accurate but also engaging enough to cut through the clutter; otherwise the risk isn’t just legal, but creative irrelevance. For Girish Narayandass of Bare Bones Collective, tone is everything, “If you’re doing it, make sure the tone of your campaign does not make your brand look bitter or a child screaming for attention. Wit, freshness, playfulness help. Don’t be disrespectful.”
The line is crossed when a brand directly names or mocks a competitor, that’s when clever marketing turns petty. Comparative advertising should always be rooted in facts and supported by verifiable evidence. Similarly, Ashish Tambe, NCD at Social Beat, stresses that authenticity should guide every comparative message. For him, the danger zone is when brands slip into exaggeration or mockery.
“The red line for me is when the communication slips into negativity, mockery or unverifiable claims. I’d always advise brands to avoid crass comparisons, direct name-calling, or exaggerated claims that could mislead consumers.”
The agency consensus is clear: comparative ads only work when they’re witty, truthful, and respectful. Otherwise, they risk making the brand look petty.
Comparative advertising is not going away. If anything, as categories become more cluttered, brands will continue to push the envelope to stand out. The challenge lies in doing so without slipping into distortion, disrespect, or disparagement. As Kaushik reminds us, “A jab only works if it’s rooted in truth. Otherwise, it risks making the brand look small and defensive.”
For advertisers, the safest path is to celebrate their own strengths while keeping comparisons witty and well-founded. For regulators, the task will be to keep pace with a fast-moving media environment, ensuring that consumer trust is protected without stifling creative competition.
Ultimately, the thin line between competition and contention will remain a balancing act, one that demands both courage and caution from India’s advertisers. In the end, the toughest judge isn’t the court or ASCI, it’s the consumer. Because once trust is lost, no clever jab can win
it back.
