Brands turn risk averse as influencer controversies trigger surge in morality clauses
After controversies involving Samay Raina, Apoorva Mukhija and other creators, brands are increasingly inserting morality clauses in influencer contracts to protect reputation, enforce accountability, and ensure ethical alignment in India’s fast-evolving creator economy.
ADVERTISEMENT
As India’s influencer economy booms, with creators commanding multi-crore deals and millions of loyal followers, the industry finds itself confronting an uncomfortable truth — authenticity and outrage now often walk a fine line. In a space driven by relatability and real-time reactions, a careless word or impulsive livestream can turn from content gold to a corporate nightmare in seconds.
To safeguard brand image amid rising online controversies, marketing agencies and legal experts say “morality clauses” are fast becoming standard in influencer contracts — clauses that allow brands to swiftly distance themselves from creators if their content crosses ethical, legal, or community boundaries.
Sahil Chopra, Chairman of the Indian Influencer Governance Council (IIGC), summed up the shift succinctly, “There have been various instances of influencer controversies which, though often unintentional, have made brands realize they can’t afford reputational risks, even when it’s just someone’s authentic self or an honest mistake. That’s where morality clauses come into the picture with clear boundaries and shared values. Morality clauses make sure both brands and influencers are not only aligned but also equally accountable and protected in an increasingly transparent influencer marketing ecosystem.”
Chopra’s remarks point to an inflection point in India’s creator economy, now estimated at over ₹1,900 crore, with categories ranging from fashion and fitness to gaming and finance. What was once a largely unregulated creative field is maturing rapidly, especially as digital advertising budgets shift from traditional media to influencer collaborations.
A contract (seen by Storyboard18) of a leading influencer with a top FMCG brand reads, "Influencer shall conduct himself or herself at all times with due regard to public morals and conventions. If at any time during the Term of this Agreement, Influencer conducts himself or herself in a manner offensive to decency, morality or social proprietary resulting in public scandal or ridicule, or that reflects unfavorably on brand's products or the image of the company's “brand,” or that reduces the value of company's association with Influencer, company shall have the right in its reasonable good faith discretion to immediately terminate this Agreement."
"If Influencer publicly disparages company, its brands or its products or breaches its exclusivity obligations set forth, company shall also have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement. In addition, upon request at any time, Influencer agrees that it shall promptly remove all Content and Communications from its social media pages, its websites or other outlets. Company's reasonable good faith decision on all matters arising under this paragraph shall be conclusive."
Nowhere is this dynamic more visible than in gaming and livestreaming, India’s fastest-growing digital entertainment segment. With over 550 million gamers and a post-pandemic explosion in real-time engagement, streamers wield immense influence — but also face immense scrutiny.
Rohit Agarwal, Founder and Director of Alpha Zegus, said "“The rise in toxicity is a side effect of scale and anonymity. Over 550 million gamers in India now engage online, and livestreaming has exploded post-COVID with ultra-low latency chat. That instant feedback loop gives rise to ‘keyboard warriors’ and it often rewards outrage — creators see spikes in engagement when they’re louder, edgier, or controversial. Combine that with young audiences who emulate what they see, and toxicity becomes part of the performance that rewards, not just the background noise.”
Agarwal noted that this engagement-driven ecosystem often incentivizes provocation. “It’s not that creators are bad people — it’s that the system rewards extreme behavior,” he said. “Algorithms pick up spikes in engagement, and outrage travels faster than good manners.”
One of the most talked-about recent controversies involves Samay Raina, Ranveer Allahbadia (BeerBiceps), Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh, and influencer Apoorva Mukhija (“The Rebel Kid”). It stemmed from an episode of India’s Got Latent, a comedy-talent show hosted by Raina.
In response, brands have begun adopting strict oversight mechanisms. Livestreamers and digital creators — from household names like Mortal, ScoutOP, and CarryMinati to mid-tier microinfluencers — are now subject to detailed behavior codes.
“Brands are far more cautious now, especially FMCG, BFSI, and auto sectors,” Agarwal added. “A single abusive clip can derail a campaign. We’ve seen cases where brands quietly drop streamers after out-of-context clips go viral. Today, every influencer contract includes a ‘morality clause’ or ‘bad acts’ clause, letting brands exit if content crosses community guidelines or brand safety lines.”
Creators like Samay Raina and Ranveer Allahbadia are caught between pressure to entertain, to go viral, and to stay within bounds set by law and public opinion. Even voice or tone can cause backlash — as in the case of Samay, where the content was taken down and he lost views, but also saw both criticism and support.
Such clauses are modeled on similar provisions long used in celebrity endorsements — where film stars and athletes risk termination if their actions damage a brand’s reputation. What’s new, however, is the scale and specificity. Influencers are now being vetted for everything from past content to language patterns during live sessions.
The rise of morality clauses also coincides with tighter digital regulations. Jay Sayta, Technology & Gaming Lawyer, said that Indian law already provides mechanisms to curb offensive conduct online.
“Using offensive language on online platforms could invite registration of offence under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Information Technology Act. Further, if such comments are against the dignity of women or hurt religious sentiments or against public order etc., then further action as per provisions of BNS could be attracted.”
Sayta emphasized that the legal framework isn’t the problem — enforcement and awareness are. “The provisions of law already exist to take action against offensive or vulgar content on online platforms, however, platforms should sensitise its users about adhering to all laws and norms and immediately and proactively take down content which violates any law. More awareness needs to be created to ensure all users adhere to norms and a sense of morality while livestreaming.”
Urfi Javed has also been involved in controversies over public image, alleged derogatory remarks by contestants about her, and legal complaints from politicians over her fashion or public conduct.
For creators, the growing prevalence of morality clauses raises an uncomfortable question: where does authenticity end and corporate compliance begin?
Some influencers argue that the pendulum may be swinging too far. “Being real is why people follow us,” said a lifestyle influencer who preferred to remain anonymous. “But now, every post feels like a legal landmine. You’re always thinking — will this offend someone, will a brand drop me?”
As India prepares for the next phase of its digital revolution, influencer marketing is expected to surpass ₹3,000 crore by 2026. But along with growth comes responsibility.
With morality clauses now serving as both shield and signal — protecting brands while nudging creators toward ethical expression — the influencer economy may finally be learning a hard but necessary truth: virality is fleeting, but credibility lasts.
