AI content rules kick in Feb 20: What changes for brands, agencies, creators and paid ads

New Delhi: The government’s new rules on AI-generated and synthetic content are legally aimed at social media platforms, but the ripple effect will be felt across advertising, marketing and media in how campaigns are produced, approved and distributed.

The reason is simple. Platforms will operationalise compliance through product prompts, upload flows, ad review systems and enforcement timelines, and everyone else will have to adapt.

The amendments to the IT Rules make AI labels mandatory on synthetic content and cut the takedown timeline to three hours for content flagged by a competent authority or court. The rules take effect on February 20.

Platforms are regulated, but marketers will feel it first in workflows

For marketers, the immediate shift will come through platform enforcement. Significant social media intermediaries have to seek user declarations on whether uploads are synthetically generated and deploy tools to verify those declarations. In practice, this can result in a new “pre-publish checklist” for agencies and creators, as content that is AI-generated or materially altered may face delays, rejection, restricted reach, or relabeling if declarations and labels are missing or contested.

Industry feedback around earlier drafts had already flagged the risk of steep compliance costs and operational ambiguity, especially when definitions are broad, and enforcement is time-bound. While those comments were aimed at platforms, the downstream result for advertisers is predictable, i.e., more checks and more documentation.

AI disclosure becomes default in creator marketing

Creatives and creator marketing will need “AI disclosure by default”. If a post, video or image is AI-generated or materially altered, platforms will need it clearly and prominently labelled. The rules also talk about embedding provenance mechanisms and identifiers where technically feasible, and bar the removal or suppression of labels and metadata once applied.

This will flow back to brands and agencies. Influencer briefs, production contracts and approval checklists are likely to start including AI-use declarations and “no tampering with labels/metadata” clauses. It also means creators using AI dubbing, background replacement, synthetic product shots, voice cloning for vernacular versions, or face swaps for storytelling will have to plan disclosures into the asset itself, not as an afterthought

Three hours change brand safety planning

Speed will become the new risk variable for brand safety. A three-hour takedown window for content flagged by a competent authority or court raises the operational cost of any campaign that touches sensitive themes or uses synthetic elements that could be contested.

Practically, brands will push for faster monitoring and escalation playbooks during launches, controversy-prone moments, and high-attention events. Expect heavier use of backup edits, alternate cuts, replacement captions, and contingency media plans so a campaign does not go dark if a key asset gets pulled.

Social-first content that uses AI heavily may slow down

More friction is likely for “social-first” formats that use AI heavily. Since platforms must seek declarations and deploy verification tools, additional moderation and provenance checks can mean delays, rejections, or limited distribution, especially if the content has been edited multiple times and metadata signals are lost in the process.

This matters for meme-style brand content, rapid response marketing, and creator-led short-form work where speed is the point. Teams may need cleaner handoffs, fewer last-minute exports, and more standardised production practices to preserve labels and provenance cues.

Paid media could see more “creative compliance” rejections

Once platforms operationalise the rules, ad ops teams are likely to tighten reviews on deepfake-like visuals, voice cloning, impersonation cues, document-style creatives and deceptive formats.

The amendments also require platforms to deploy reasonable and appropriate measures, including automated tools, to prevent illegal and harmful synthetic content. In the ad ecosystem, that usually translates into stricter policy enforcement and longer review cycles for borderline formats.

The practical implication is straightforward. Agencies will need to submit AI disclosures upfront for assets that use synthetic elements and retain edit logs or asset lineage, so they can respond quickly if a platform flags the creative.

Faster complaint timelines mean quicker content action

The amendments shorten grievance timelines as well, including quicker acknowledgement and faster disposal. That can translate into faster platform action on complaints that target ads, brand handles or creator content.

Brands that have dealt with coordinated complaints in the past will likely keep pre-approved alternates ready, especially for high-spend bursts. Publishers and media owners will also tighten intake rules for UGC and branded content, because the risk is not only takedowns but also monetisation disruption.

Compliance costs rise for platforms, ripple effects follow

On the platform side, compliance costs are expected to rise due to verification, labelling infrastructure, provenance mechanisms, and tooling to detect illegal synthetic content. Past industry representations had warned that costs and ambiguities could be significant, particularly at scale. As platforms absorb this, some of that cost shows up indirectly as stricter thresholds, more conservative enforcement, and slower approvals for certain creative formats.

A new marketing upside: transparent AI as a trust signal

The rules also create a clearer lane for “responsible AI” advertising. Brands that adopt transparent disclosures and clean provenance practices can position that transparency as a trust signal, especially in BFSI, healthcare, education and government-facing communication, where credibility and misinformation risk are high.