AI-generated content labelling now mandatory: What it means for brands and influencers

New Delhi: As AI tools grow more sophisticated, it is becoming increasingly difficult for audiences to distinguish between what is real and what is synthetically generated on social media. Hyper-real voice cloning, seamless face swaps and AI-assisted edits now blend almost invisibly into everyday content feeds, blurring the line between authenticity and fabrication. In that context, clearer disclosure norms are no longer optional; they are becoming essential.

The government’s new AI labelling mandate and three-hour takedown requirement may be directed at social media platforms, but their operational impact is set to ripple across advertising, influencer marketing and digital media workflows.

With AI-generated or materially altered content now required to carry clear labels, and platforms obligated to act within three hours when flagged by a competent authority or court, agencies and brands are recalibrating how campaigns are conceptualised, documented and cleared. The shift effectively moves AI from being a back-end production choice to a front-end compliance decision.

AI cannot be an afterthought

Executives across agencies say the most immediate change will be visible at the briefing stage. Instead of deciding on AI tools during editing or post-production, teams will now need to document usage upfront, whether for voice cloning, synthetic backgrounds, lookalike imagery, scripting assistance or visual enhancement. That clarity is expected to flow into influencer briefs, internal approval notes and production contracts.

Deepak Chabbra, Founder, Jubliexx, said the change formalises early planning. “Earlier, AI usage could be decided during production. Now, it needs to be addressed right from the briefing stage. Creator briefs will increasingly require upfront clarity on whether AI will be used, in what capacity, and how disclosures will be handled,” he said.

This upstream shift is bringing legal and compliance functions into the creative process earlier than before. Rather than reviewing campaigns only at final sign-off, compliance teams are beginning to assess potential exposure during concept development itself, particularly where impersonation-style storytelling or synthetic edits are involved.

Ambika Sharma, Founder and Chief Strategist, Pulp Strategy, described the change as structural. “AI usage will no longer be a background production choice. From the briefing stage itself, agencies will need to document whether AI is being used for voice, face, environment, scripting, edits or enhancement. Legal and compliance will enter the creative room earlier,” she said.

Contracts and influencer agreements are also being updated to reflect the new risk environment. Provenance documentation, likeness permissions, indemnity clauses and “no tampering with labels or metadata” provisions are gradually becoming standard inclusions.

“This is no longer optional hygiene. It is risk management,” Sharma added.

The three-hour takedown window has sharpened brand-safety calculations, particularly for high-attention campaigns. In social ecosystems where a large share of engagement occurs within the first day of posting, a rapid removal can translate into reputational damage and wasted paid media expenditure.

As a result, agencies say they are reassessing formats that rely on lookalikes, impersonation cues or synthetic edits. The evaluation is no longer limited to whether a creative execution is attention-grabbing; it now includes whether it can withstand regulatory scrutiny at short notice.

Yasin Hamidani, Director, Media Care Brand Solutions, said the approach is becoming more defensive by design. “The focus has shifted from ‘will this trend work?’ to ‘can we defend this creatively and legally if questioned within hours?’,” he said.

The recalibration is also affecting approval cycles. While executives do not uniformly expect prolonged delays, most anticipate stricter filters, additional documentation layers and more structured sign-offs, especially in compliance-sensitive categories such as finance, healthcare and public services.

As platforms operationalise AI detection tools and disclosure requirements, agencies expect internal review mechanisms to become more layered, particularly for high-stakes campaigns. The tightening is not uniform across all formats, but where AI usage intersects with paid amplification, sensitive categories or large-scale launches, scrutiny is likely to increase.

Dhanush Rajendiran, Co-Founder of KekuMeku, Brand First Talent Agency & Content House, said scrutiny will intensify selectively. “Stricter, definitely. Longer, selectively. Paid campaigns, high-visibility launches, and compliance-sensitive categories will see tighter review layers,” he said, adding that AI-heavy formats will attract greater internal review before publishing.

This additional oversight is also beginning to reflect in campaign timelines and resource allocation, with compliance checks moving from a final-stage formality to a structured checkpoint within production cycles.

Suyash Lahoti, Partner, Wit & Chai Group, said agencies are already building additional compliance time into campaign calendars. “We are already seeing an additional 15 to 25 percent time being built into compliance reviews, starting from clearer creator briefs that define AI usage upfront, to stricter approval filters around synthetic edits, voice cloning and lookalike imagery,” he said.

Rules or guardrails? 

However, most industry voices do not view the rules as an outright constraint on creativity. Instead, they describe them as guardrails that could professionalise experimentation.

Sharma argued that mandatory disclosure will “eliminate reckless creativity” rather than restrict thoughtful execution. “When teams know work must be defensible, writing improves, execution sharpens, and experimentation becomes thoughtful rather than impulsive,” she said.

Maddie Amrutkar, Founder and CEO, Glad U Came, similarly positioned transparency as a trust-building mechanism. “Final approvals won’t just be about aesthetics - they’ll include AI disclosure and provenance checks. Being transparent about AI use doesn’t limit imagination. It forces better ideas,” she said.

Executives also see a competitive dimension emerging from the compliance shift. As scrutiny tightens and synthetic media becomes more prevalent, agencies with structured AI governance frameworks and documented workflows may find themselves better positioned in trust-sensitive sectors.

“Compliance will most probably become a significant differentiator,” Chabbra said, noting that transparent disclosure practices and prompt response systems can strengthen brand credibility rather than merely reduce risk.

Hamidani added that credibility is likely to carry increasing commercial weight. “As scrutiny increases, credibility will matter as much as creativity. Brands will gravitate toward agencies that help them move fast and stay safe,” he said.

Taken together, the new AI labelling and takedown rules are expected to reshape campaign production from a largely creative-first process into a disclosure-first workflow. The emphasis is shifting towards provenance, documentation, pre-publication verification and real-time monitoring.

For an industry accustomed to velocity and trend-led improvisation, that marks a significant adjustment. Yet the consensus among agency leaders suggests that speed will not disappear; it will be engineered within clearer compliance structures. In the emerging landscape, defensible execution and transparent AI use are likely to become integral to how campaigns are conceived, approved and distributed.