&w=3840&q=100)
IIGC launches Code of Standards to govern influencer-brand deals
The Indian Influencer Governing Council (IIGC) on Monday announced the launch of the Code of Standards for Brands, a framework aimed at promoting ethical, transparent, and responsible brand partnerships in the fast-evolving influencer marketing ecosystem.
IIGC, an initiative led by industry stakeholders to support government efforts, foster collaboration, and promote responsible practices in influencer marketing, stated in its release that the code will address critical areas such as mandatory transparency and disclosure of paid partnerships, gifted products, and affiliate links. It will also promote content authenticity by encouraging influencers to retain their genuine voice while discouraging scripted, misleading, or manipulative messaging.
'Brand–influencer partnerships are incredibly powerful, but also vulnerable to reputational risks,' said Sahil Chopra, chairman, IIGC, in a statement. 'Today, almost 95 per cent of brand–influencer work happens without a formal contract, leading to unnecessary disputes and a breakdown of trust. The Code of Standards for Brands makes the ecosystem more accountable and sustainable. With the addition of the IIGC Taskforce, we are giving the industry a much-needed safety net to operate with greater transparency and fairness.'
As per the recently launched code, brands will be required to ensure full disclosure when using virtual influencers, and deceptive use of CGI (computer-generated imagery) or deepfakes will be banned. Data privacy is another core pillar, with the code enforcing strict protocols for data collection, targeting, and consumer consent, in line with the Consumer Protection Act and other applicable privacy laws.
The code also introduces guidance around brand–influencer contractual frameworks. It will provide templates and best practices to ensure that all partnerships are governed by clear, fair, and transparent contracts, the release said.
Simultaneously, the operational launch of the IIGC Taskforce—which offers ongoing governance and support to brands through real-time digital listening, sentiment analysis, and crisis mitigation—will help brands manage online reputation risks more proactively, the release stated.
'Its mediation service offers a neutral and confidential space to resolve disputes related to content, reputational concerns, and contractual issues, protecting relationships and preserving industry trust. When required, the taskforce also facilitates access to verified legal professionals to guide brands through complex regulatory landscapes or contractual challenges,' the release added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
35 MRP breach costs bike service centre 50,000
1 2 Ahmedabad: A consumer commission has ordered a motorcycle service centre to pay compensation of Rs 50,000 to a customer for charging Rs 35 more than the maximum retail price printed on an engine oil packet. According to the case details, one Nikunj Parmar visited the Suzuki motorcycle service centre — Arke Suzuki Service — at Nava Vadaj on May 20, 2024, to purchase a packet of engine oil. While the packet bore a maximum retail price (MRP) of Rs 455, the service centre charged him Rs 490. He objected to being charged Rs 35 extra and later filed his complaint with the national consumer helpline portal, but no action was taken against the centre. Parmar then sued the service centre, Turquoise Autobots LLP and Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt Ltd, at the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (city). The service centre did not respond to the commission's notice within time, and the auto company argued that it should not be held liable since no specific relief was not sought against it. The complainant submitted that the motorcycle company recommended the company-made engine oil to enhance the vehicle's performance. When he objected to being charged more than the MRP, he faced verbal abuse as well. The commission said that the manufacturer's liability is limited in this case according to Section 84 of the Consumer Protection Act. It said the complainant should establish that the overcharging was done at the behest of Suzuki, but there was no such evidence. The commission stated that charging more than the MRP illegally can be called an unfair trade practice. "Moreover, the staff misbehaved with the customer, did not use proper language and snatched the oil pack from him. They finally succeeded in extracting Rs 35 more from the customer…This requires an exemplary punishing order," the commission stated and clarified that Suzuki, the company, was not liable. The commission ordered Arke Suzuki Service and Turquoise Autobots LLP to refund Rs 35 to Parmar with 8% interest and to pay him a compensation of Rs 50,000 for causing mental and physical harassment. It has also ordered an additional payment of Rs 5,000 to the customer towards legal expenses.
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business Standard
IIGC launches Code of Standards to govern influencer-brand deals
The Indian Influencer Governing Council (IIGC) on Monday announced the launch of the Code of Standards for Brands, a framework aimed at promoting ethical, transparent, and responsible brand partnerships in the fast-evolving influencer marketing ecosystem. IIGC, an initiative led by industry stakeholders to support government efforts, foster collaboration, and promote responsible practices in influencer marketing, stated in its release that the code will address critical areas such as mandatory transparency and disclosure of paid partnerships, gifted products, and affiliate links. It will also promote content authenticity by encouraging influencers to retain their genuine voice while discouraging scripted, misleading, or manipulative messaging. 'Brand–influencer partnerships are incredibly powerful, but also vulnerable to reputational risks,' said Sahil Chopra, chairman, IIGC, in a statement. 'Today, almost 95 per cent of brand–influencer work happens without a formal contract, leading to unnecessary disputes and a breakdown of trust. The Code of Standards for Brands makes the ecosystem more accountable and sustainable. With the addition of the IIGC Taskforce, we are giving the industry a much-needed safety net to operate with greater transparency and fairness.' As per the recently launched code, brands will be required to ensure full disclosure when using virtual influencers, and deceptive use of CGI (computer-generated imagery) or deepfakes will be banned. Data privacy is another core pillar, with the code enforcing strict protocols for data collection, targeting, and consumer consent, in line with the Consumer Protection Act and other applicable privacy laws. The code also introduces guidance around brand–influencer contractual frameworks. It will provide templates and best practices to ensure that all partnerships are governed by clear, fair, and transparent contracts, the release said. Simultaneously, the operational launch of the IIGC Taskforce—which offers ongoing governance and support to brands through real-time digital listening, sentiment analysis, and crisis mitigation—will help brands manage online reputation risks more proactively, the release stated. 'Its mediation service offers a neutral and confidential space to resolve disputes related to content, reputational concerns, and contractual issues, protecting relationships and preserving industry trust. When required, the taskforce also facilitates access to verified legal professionals to guide brands through complex regulatory landscapes or contractual challenges,' the release added.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC refuses relief to man given 182-yr term for defrauding 344 homebuyers
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant relief to a 75-year-old former director of a property firm facing an extraordinary 182-year prison sentence for defrauding 344 homebuyers, upholding the authority of a consumer forum to impose multiple consecutive jail terms in a landmark case. In a verdict delivered on May 30 and released Monday, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea of Rajender Mittal, a director of Tirupati Builders Pvt Ltd, who had sought modification of the sentence imposed by a district consumer court. The court in 1995 had convicted Mittal for failing to refund booking amounts collected from buyers promised plots in a proposed residential colony—Tirupati Township—on Delhi's Baghpat Road. The Tirupati Township Plot Holders Association, representing over 300 homebuyers, accused Mittal and his co-director Rakesh Kumar Sharma of collecting ₹90.79 lakh for plots that were never delivered. On March 13, 1995, the district consumer forum ruled in the buyers' favour, directing the directors to refund the money with 18% annual interest, along with ₹20,000 in compensation and ₹500 in litigation costs to each complainant. The Supreme Court upheld the order in July 2011. The two directors, however, failed to comply with the refund order. In February 1998, the consumer forum invoked Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which allows imprisonment for up to three years for non-compliance with forum orders. The forum sentenced Mittal and Sharma to one year of simple imprisonment in 20 complaints and six months in each of the remaining 324. Crucially, it directed the sentences to run consecutively—resulting in a combined term of 182 years. The sentence was suspended for three months to give the duo a final chance to comply. In 2003, the Delhi state consumer commission upheld this decision. Praying for his immediate release from prison, Mittal on December 1, 2020, challenged the sentence in the high court, arguing that since all complaints stemmed from the same transaction and were decided through a common order, the punishments should run concurrently. That would have limited his prison term to one year. He called the forum's decision 'excessive, arbitrary and illegal,' citing that the forum could not go beyond the maximum three-year sentence outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. Mittal also pointed to his incarceration in a separate criminal case. Arrested in 2016 after being declared a proclaimed offender, he was convicted in 2019 for cheating, criminal conspiracy, and criminal breach of trust. He was sentenced to five years for cheating, three years for breach of trust, and two years for conspiracy, with sentences running concurrently. He claimed to have already served over seven years in that case. But the high court was unmoved. Representing the Centre, advocate Udit Vaghela argued that the 1995 consumer forum order had attained finality after the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling and could not be reopened. Justice Krishna rejected Mittal's petition, ruling that the sentences were lawful and enforceable under Section 27, and since they were imposed for default of compliance rather than for criminal wrongdoing, they could not be made to run concurrently. She underlined that the punishment was not punitive, but a civil measure aimed at compelling compliance with the forum's directions. 'These sentences being for default of fine, cannot under the law be directed to run concurrently as it is not punitive in nature but only intended to ensure compliance,' held the judge, emphasising that no direction as sought by the petitioner could be issued under such circumstances. However, the court left a narrow window open: Mittal, the court said, was free to approach the district forum afresh on grounds of financial incapacity and seek a modified sentence there.
