After a viral controversy erupted around Astronomer CEO Andy Buron, who was caught in a compromising situation with the company’s Chief People Officer, Kristin Cabot, the internet went into overdrive. Memes, hot takes, and relentless commentary flooded social media. In the aftermath, both Andy and Kristin stepped down from their roles, and the company issued a series of statements. The first few were standard corporate responses aimed at damage control.
But it was the Astronomer’s fourth statement that truly grabbed everyone’s attention. In a move no one saw coming, the company brought in actress and Goop founder Gwyneth Paltrow, best known to pop culture fans as Coldplay frontman Chris Martin’s ex-wife, as a temporary spokesperson.
In a tongue-in-cheek video posted on Astronomer’s X account, Paltrow begins: “Thank you for your interest in Astronomer. I’ve been hired on a very temporary basis to speak on behalf of the 300-plus employees at Astronomer.” Instead of addressing the scandal directly, she swerves entirely, going on to explain what the company does.
Thank you for your interest in Astronomer. pic.twitter.com/WtxEegbAMY
— Astronomer (@astronomerio) July 25, 2025
Is this an unconventional, borderline absurd way to manage a PR crisis?
In India last month, fitness influencer Akash Yadav, who has over 3 lakh followers, filed a complaint with the FSSAI, accusing clean-label brand The Whole Truth of making misleading and inaccurate claims about its products. Instead of escalating the matter legally, the brand chose transparency and direct communication. Founder Shashank Mehta personally responded to the post about the allegations, calling them baseless and addressing each point in detail, reaffirming the brand’s commitment to honest labeling and consumer trust.
Watch Akash Yadav's Instagram video here.
Speaking to us, Samarth Bansal, Head of Content at The Whole Truth Foods, explains that food brands broke trust over the last few decades by selling half-truths through misleading claims, fueling a deep trust deficit in the food industry. “In that environment, consumer skepticism is justified. So, The Whole Truth was started on the principle of radical transparency. We list every ingredient boldly on the front of the pack, because consumers deserve to know what they’re eating,” he says.
“That’s why we invest heavily in what we call ‘trust content’ educational explainers, ingredient decoding, guidance on label reading, and transparent product philosophy. It’s not just marketing,” Bansal adds.
“A few months ago, we made an honest mistake. There was a labeling error related to lactose in one of our products. We addressed it head-on with a detailed post titled 'Sorry,' where we explained exactly what went wrong, why, and how we were fixing it. When there’s a genuine issue, we don’t hide from it. We take responsibility and communicate transparently with our consumers.”
While The Whole Truth responded to criticism with clarity and calm, steering clear of any legal drama, another FMCG giant took a very different route.
When comedian Manjeet Sarkar posted a stand-up clip about news reports alleging Patanjali used cuttlefish bones in a supposedly vegetarian dental product, the brand didn’t take the joke lightly. Instead, they served Sarkar a 16-page legal notice demanding he take down the video and issue a public apology. But the comedian had other plans.
Watch Comedian Manjeet Sarkar's Patanjali video here.
Refusing to comply, he announced that he would not only keep the video up but also add a dedicated 10-minute joke segment about the brand in his stand-up routine without even naming them. The aggressive legal approach backfired, pushing Patanjali into deeper PR trouble and sparking debate around brand sensitivity, freedom of speech.
We reached out to Patanjali and the comedian. By the time of publishing this story was published, they had not replied.
We also reached out to Akash Yadav, but he didn’t reply.
Following the Foodpharma-Bournvita controversy, the trend of deinfluencing has gained significant traction, posing a growing challenge for FMCG brands.
According to sources, several top executives from leading consumer goods companies recently met with Union Food Processing Minister Chirag Paswan to express concerns over the impact of influencer-driven content.
Many highlighted that videos questioning product ingredients or brand claims are often made without adequate knowledge or scientific backing, yet they go viral and influence public perception, ultimately affecting consumer trust and market share. The ministry has said to form a committee and see what can be done on this.
With such incidents becoming increasingly common, the real question is: how should brands navigate a crisis in the age of viral content and public scrutiny?
Tarunjeet Rattan, managing partner, Nucleus PR, says if the brand voice is cheeky, quirky, or bold, it isn’t the time to go beige. “In the age of Deinfluencing 2.0, where virality can be weaponised, your best defense is a legally-sound, platform-specific, tone-consistent response,” she highlights.
She suggests that in that case, brands should follow both legal action and respond to it creatively as well. As PR paves the path to recovery. A clear, well-crafted legal notice helps set the record straight, while transparent communication wins back the narrative.
Manisha Kapoor, CEO and Secretary General of ASCI, views the rise of deinfluencing as a positive evolution. “Creators today aren’t just amplifiers, they’re also watchdogs, holding brands accountable for misleading messaging,” she says.
However, she cautions against the growing trend of sensationalism in influencer content. “We need to ensure that deinfluencing is rooted in facts. When it relies on hype over evidence, it becomes just as misleading as the ads it critiques. As long as it helps create better-informed consumers, it’s a step in the right direction; otherwise, it risks becoming another form of misinformation.”
To keep pace with the shifting content landscape, Kapoor notes that ASCI is actively evolving its influencer guidelines. “Our updates include platform-specific advisories and mandatory qualification disclosures for sensitive categories like health and finance. It’s all part of our commitment to promoting responsible, transparent advertising.”
Saurabh Parmar, fractional CMO, believes 'deinfluencing' is an emerging trend to watch. Just as influencers can drive purchases, they also have the power to dissuade people from buying certain products.
He cautions brands against resorting to legal action to silence individuals with strong social media followings, as such moves often backfire and amplify the backlash. Instead, he recommends that brands put a clear communication strategy and crisis workflow in place to manage such situations effectively.
In short, Parmar advises brands to accept, listen, and respond thoughtfully.
The Kantar Influencer Playbook highlights a significant trend that 67% of consumers trust influencer recommendations more than traditional ads.
Prasanna Kumar, Head of Creative Domain at Kantar’s Insights Division, notes that deinfluencing first emerged in the beauty and skincare space but has since gained traction across categories.
He emphasises that today’s consumers appreciate honesty and humility. Brands like The Whole Truth and boAt have earned trust by being transparent and using humour, even in difficult situations. In contrast, defensive or combative responses often push away younger, digitally native audiences. In the social media age, how a brand responds often matters more than what it’s responding to.
Kalyan Kumar, Co-Founder and CEO of Klug Tech, says, “De-influencing is on the rise because audiences are growing weary of blind brand promotions. When a creator calls out a product, they’re not just rejecting a collaboration—they’re building credibility. That trust often leads to a larger, more engaged audience and, ironically, greater brand interest from companies that align with their values. You can’t win the internet with muscle—you win it with authenticity.”
Kumar adds, “The worst thing a brand can do in response to de-influencing is send a legal notice. If you lose, you haven’t just lost a case, you’ve handed the creator a halo.”
As brands navigate this new terrain, where every consumer can be a critic and every creator can become a catalyst, silence or aggression is no longer a viable PR strategy.
Deinfluencing might look like a threat, but for brands brave enough to own their narrative, it's an opportunity as well.
