YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has created a debate after releasing a video questioning Shah Rukh Khan’s decision to endorse a paan masala brand, given his significant wealth.
Rathee’s video quickly went viral on social media, sparking a heated discussion about ethics in celebrity endorsements.
In the video, Rathee points out that even with an estimated net worth of over $1 billion, Khan continues to accept endorsement deals for products widely associated with health risks.
Citing reports that Khan earns an estimated ₹100–200 crore for such deals, Rathee questioned whether someone with a net worth of ₹12,400 crore ($1.4 billion) really needs the additional money.
Rathee argued that as a highly influential public figure, Khan has a social responsibility to avoid promoting potentially harmful products. He suggested that if a top actor like Khan refused such an endorsement, it would send a powerful message across the nation.
The video highlighted the health issues linked to paan masala and similar products, implying that Khan is promoting something that encourages harmful habits, especially among the youth.
The controversy around the Vimal paan masala ad has escalated into legal issues.
Consumer courts in India have issued notices to Shah Rukh Khan, as well as fellow co-endorsers Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, based on complaints that the ads are misleading.
View this post on Instagram
The core of the complaint is the ad’s claim of saffron (kesar) in a product priced too cheaply for the ingredient to be real.
This is not the first time the actors have faced scrutiny for this endorsement.
Actor Akshay Kumar also received backlash for appearing in an ad with Khan and Devgn. He later issued an apology and withdrew from the campaign in 2022.
In contrast, Ajay Devgn reportedly called it a “personal choice.”
After Rathee’s video went viral, an old interview in which Khan addressed similar criticism surfaced online.
In the clip, Khan reportedly said that if the sale of such products was to be banned, it should be done by a governing authority, noting that they are “revenue for the government.”
