0.0 Nature of the Article

0.0.1 Legal analysis of a Kerala High Court judgment on brand ambassador liability under consumer law.
0.0.2 Examines the boundary between advertising influence and consumer transaction responsibility.

0.1 Central Legal Question

0.1.1 Can a celebrity brand ambassador be held liable for unfair trade practices committed by a company?
0.1.2 Does mere appearance in an advertisement create legal responsibility for the consumer transaction?

0.2 Facts of the Case

0.2.1 Borrowers took gold loans from Manappuram Finance after seeing advertisements featuring Mohanlal.
0.2.2 A bank manager allegedly promised a lower interest rate than what was later charged.
0.2.3 The borrowers filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
0.2.4 Mohanlal was included as a party solely because he was the company’s brand ambassador.

0.3 Issue Before the Court

0.3.1 Mohanlal argued that he had no role in loan sanction, interest rates, or borrower interaction.
0.3.2 The question was whether celebrity endorsement alone makes an endorser liable in a consumer dispute.

0.4 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Relevant Provisions

0.4.1 The Act defines “endorsement” broadly to include depictions influencing consumers.
0.4.2 Unfair trade practice includes false or misleading representations.
0.4.3 However, the Act deals with endorser liability specifically under Section 21, which concerns false or misleading advertisements.

0.5 Scope of Endorser Liability Under the Act

0.5.1 Endorsers can be penalised only when the advertisement itself is false or misleading.
0.5.2 Even then, liability arises only if the endorser has not exercised due diligence.
0.5.3 The Act does not make endorsers parties to ordinary consumer disputes arising from service failure.

0.6 Court’s Reasoning

0.6.1 The court found no direct link between Mohanlal and the loan transaction.
0.6.2 The borrowers were not shown to have taken the loan based on any personal assurance by the actor.
0.6.3 The alleged promise regarding interest rate came from the company’s manager, not the advertisement.
0.6.4 Mere appearance in advertisements does not establish transactional or contractual responsibility.

0.7 Clarification on Unfair Trade Practice

0.7.1 An unfair trade practice arises when the service provider fails to deliver the service as promised.
0.7.2 Such failure can be attributed only to the company providing the service, not the endorser.

0.8 Status of Advertising Guidelines

0.8.1 The 2022 guidelines on misleading advertisements operate within the framework of Section 21.
0.8.2 They do not expand endorser liability beyond what the Act expressly provides.

0.9 Final Outcome

0.9.1 Proceedings against Mohanlal were quashed by the Kerala High Court.
0.9.2 The consumer case against Manappuram Finance was allowed to continue.

0.10 Broader Legal Significance

0.10.1 Clearly separates advertising endorsement from consumer transaction liability.
0.10.2 Prevents indiscriminate inclusion of celebrities in consumer disputes.
0.10.3 Provides legal clarity in the context of celebrity endorsements and influencer marketing.