What the Digital Media and Influencer Policies of Five States Say

The Digital Media Policy, 2024 recently released by the Uttar Pradesh government garnered significant attention but it’s not the only one which exists. This post compares and contrasts state-level digital media/influencer-centric policies of five Indian states. State governments as well as the Union government have come up with different variations of the media/ influencer policies to disseminate information about government schemes, welfare benefits, and achievements. We aim to evaluate these policies by examining their transparency, accountability, and impact on fundamental freedoms and rights within the information ecosystem. Additionally, we will consider the effect of the propagation of the government “schemes and achievements” through the financial incentivisation of influencers and digital creators.

Important documents

1. IFF’s comparative analysis of 5 state-level digital media/influencer policies (link)
2. Uttar Pradesh Digital Media Policy, 2024 (link)
3. Haryana Digital Media Advertisement Policy, 2023 (link)
4. Karnataka Digital Advertising Guidelines, 2024 (link)
5. Punjab Influencer Empanelment Policy, 2023  (link)
6. Himachal Pradesh Digital Media Policy, 2024 (link)

Why should you care? 

These policies incentivise influencers to promote state-approved narratives by using public funds. This approach can lead to self-censorship and moral policing, and stifle creativity and free speech while influencing public perceptions of government policies and welfare schemes. This inherently creates an uneven playing field, favouring empanelled influencers over those critical of the government and solely relying on platforms like Meta or YouTube as a source of income. Furthermore, the lack of transparency around paid partnerships means audiences are often unaware that they are consuming government-funded content which limits their capacity to make informed choices. Furthermore, the ambiguous definitions of what constitutes “objectionable” content open the door to arbitrary cancellation and legal actions against the empanelled influencers when most of these policies have no redressal system in place to defend against such actions.

Background 

On August 28, 2024, reports started surfacing about Uttar Pradesh (UP) government introducing a Digital Media Policy, 2024, with speculations that it will offer financial incentives to digital creators/influencers for promoting government schemes, and impose fines on certain objectionable content created by them. Notably, the Policy itself had not been officially placed in the public domain by the UP government but had to be obtained from unofficial channels (the original Hindi policy document is archived here). The Policy, as reported, aims at incentivising digital influencers to promote state schemes and achievements on online platforms. This prompted a debate [here and here] regarding its impact on freedom of speech and expression. Following this development and the discourse around it, we attempted to analyse and research the digital media/ influencer policies of four other states namely Haryana, Karnataka, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh. As part of this post, we are releasing a table summarising and comparing the policies for the aforementioned 5 states.

Uttar Pradesh Digital Media Policy, 2024

1. Stated purpose/aim: To disseminate information about various developmental, public welfare/beneficial schemes or achievements by the state and the benefits thereof to the people of the state.
2. Medium of dissemination: through digital media platforms and other similar social media platforms.
3. Target audience for empanelment/ enlistment: Digital media handle/page/channel/account holder/operator/ digital media influencers/content writers and related agencies or firms.
4. Specified criteria for empanelment: Applicants must have been in existence for at least two years and must submit their digital media analytics reports from the last six months. Additionally, they are required to provide a self-declaration form asserting that they have no criminal cases against them, as well as another self-declaration form confirming that all information provided for the purpose of listing is true. They must also possess the necessary equipment to produce videos, posts, and other content.
5. Payment conditions: Payments will depend on the number of views and reach to the general public, which will be evaluated on the basis of the metrics provided by the content creators. The content creator will have to assure the state that the views are original through an affidavit. At this stage, no transparency safeguards have been built into the Policy to ensure that creators do not file false affidavits. Limiting the information about which creator/influencer is empanelled/enlisted to the State Government restricts individuals/users or even independent authorities from conducting checks on the authenticity of the creator’s followers/subscribers and content views/engagement. Payment will be done according to the categories (A, B, C, or D), type of content, and platform. For Facebook and Instagram, longer content will get higher payments and additional bonuses for exceeding 1 lakh views. For X, influencers will be paid extra for high engagement. Each category has a maximum monthly expenditure limit for advertisements.
6. Grounds for cancellation: As per the Policy, in case the information provided by the account holder/influencer is found to be incorrect/false, then the empanelment will stand cancelled. Here, it is unclear how the government (or who in the government) will ascertain that the provided information is accurate. If this role is assigned to a person from the UP government, then content produced in favour of the government (even if inaccurate or exaggerated) may be allowed. Similarly, accurate content/information about state-level schemes that do not show the government in a positive light may be falsely considered incorrect/inaccurate and thus may be used as grounds for cancellation of the enlistment contract. No safeguards or checks have been introduced in the Policy (in the form of an independent committee for content review, publication of cancellation order, or appeal/grievance redressal mechanisms for influencers) to ensure that the Policy is not (mis)used by state officials to propagate their preferred narrative online and restrict speech unpalatable to the state government.

 Haryana Digital Media Advertisement Policy, 2023

The Haryana Government shared an ‘Invitation for Empanelment’ to invite prominent social media channels to participate in the empanelment process under the ‘Haryana Digital Media Advertisement Policy 2023’.

1. Stated purpose/aim: To disseminate information about governmental welfare policies with the aim that it reaches the masses at an optimum level and to regulate such information/advertisement.
2. Medium of dissemination: Through various digital media platforms, including social media news channels, websites, and other reputable channels.
3. Target audience for empanelment/ enlistment: Legal entities owning the social media channels, websites, and reputed social media channels and the individual owners of social media channels, websites, and reputed social media channels.
4. Specified criteria for empanelment: Applicants must have been operating under the same name for at least one year and are required to submit their digital media analytics reports for the last 12 months. They must also provide a self-declaration form asserting that they have never been in dispute, blacklisted, or de-empanelled, along with another self-declaration form confirming that all information provided for the listing is accurate. Additionally, applicants located outside Haryana must include a certificate issued by the Director General of Directorate of Information, Public Relations & Languages, Haryana (“DIPRL”). They must have at least 50,000 followers or subscribers and have posted a minimum of 30 times per month in the six months preceding their application.
5. Payment conditions: Payments will depend on the number of views and reach. Up to 5% of the total followers/subscribers reach is required one month before the payment is made which will be evaluated on the basis of the analytics report provided by the content creators. At this stage, no transparency safeguards have been built into the Policy to ensure creators do not file false analytics reports. Relevant deductions to the advertisement rates shall be made if the content fails to reach 5% of the subscribers/ followers. The Policy does not specify the rates or methods for deductions, which means that content creators may face uncertainty about the final amount they will be paid. Additionally, since the discretion for deductions lies entirely with the state, there is a risk that the state could impose significant deductions based on its personal preferences or dissatisfaction with the content creators, potentially using this as a means to pressure creators.
6. Grounds for cancellation: As per the Policy, if any information provided is found to be false or incorrect, the empanelment will be immediately cancelled. However, the Policy does not clarify whether the DIPRL or the Panel Advisory Committee, which reviews applications, will determine the accuracy of the information. If a website broadcasts objectionable content – such as hate speech, pornography, violence, indecent or abusive material, drug-related content, cruel or insensitive topics, personal disputes, fake news, false propaganda, promotional interviews, or any other inappropriate content – the empanelment will be revoked/ suspended, and the channel will be blacklisted for a minimum of six months. In order to avoid revocation of their empanelment on broad and ambiguous grounds such as “false propaganda” or “insensitive topic”, influencers may lead to proactive or self-imposed censorship creating a chilling effect on online speech. Additionally, empanelment will be cancelled if the website refuses to display specified ads or if its unique user count decreases by 10% upon re-evaluation. Re-listing will be prohibited for six months following cancellation. The Policy also lacks clarity on whether the DIPRL or the state government will inform the content creator about the objectionable content, or if the state government will notify the DIPRL, which will then take appropriate action against the channel.

Karnataka Digital Advertising Guidelines, 2024

1. Stated purpose/ aim: To make use of digital advertising to propagate the government’s policies and schemes to internet users. The existing traditional media advertising policy is inadequate to handle digital advertising which has a completely different set of dynamics compared to traditional mass media.
2. Medium of dissemination: Through digital media entities which include social media platforms, video streaming, over-the-top (“OTT”) platforms, and influencers, as well as through a digital advertising agency.
3. Target audience for empanelment/ enlistment: The guidelines list 14 categories of digital entities which are eligible for empanelment – video streaming platforms, “OTT” platforms, social media platforms, influencers, and other digital entities.
4. Specified criteria for empanelment: The digital advertising agency must be either incorporated in Karnataka or must have a fully operational office in Karnataka. It should be at least 2 years old at the time of empanelling and should have a valid contract/agreement with Google, Meta or respective digital media entities to carry out digital advertising for governments on their platforms. In the case of a digital media entity, it must be a legally incorporated entity with the Registrar of Companies, Government of India. It should be at least one year old at the time of empanelling and continuously publishing content without any break for at least one year.
5. Payment conditions: Prices for the guidelines will be decided as per the rates specified by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (“DAVP”) for each individual format/category. In such cases where the prices are dynamic in nature, the guidelines allow for independent pricing to be followed on a case-by-case basis along the lines of DAVP rates for the same.
6. Grounds for cancellation: The guidelines do not explicitly mention any reason for suspension of empanelment. However, in case of eligibility for digital media entity, it has been mentioned that the entity should be compliant with all statutory requirements of state or Union governments or its agencies, failing which the empanelment shall be cancelled. It should also not be publishing any content–text, visuals, audio or any such–which violates Indian law. Notably, no safeguards/checks have been introduced in the guidelines (in the form of an independent committee for content review, publication of cancellation order, or appeal/ grievance redressal mechanisms for the digital entities) to ensure that the Policy is not misused by the state to propagate their preferred narrative online and restrict speech unpalatable to the state government.

Punjab Influencer Empanelment Policy, 2023

1. Stated purpose/ aim: To promote Punjab in a positive light, highlighting its governance, culture, heritage, and attractions.
2. Medium of dissemination: Through various social media platforms, namely, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Facebook & YouTube.
3. Target audience for empanelment/ enlistment: Influencers who have built a reputation for themselves on any of the social media channels where the content is published in their own name or company they own.
4. Specified criteria for empanelment: The influencer shall be active on social media for a minimum period of 6 months before the start date of application and should have at least 10,000 combined subscribers on the date of submission of application for empanelment. The influencers should also not have any criminal cases against them and must adhere to ethical guidelines (Annexure A of the Policy) when promoting products or ideas. Annexure A mentions that the ‘content should promote Punjab in a positive light’. The Policy tries to impose stringent conditions on influencers such as restrictions on posting any content that is “anti-national, or against the state’s interests”, leading to concerns about subjective interpretation by the state.
5. Payment conditions: Payment will be done according to the categories (A, B, C, D or E) based on a combined verified social media subscriber base. The rates for the Policy are determined on cost per view (within the prescribed time period of 4 days) for every category. Accordingly, the minimum base rate with respect to the number of views has been fixed for every category.
6. Grounds for cancellation: Suspension of empanelment may be done on the grounds of hate speech, violent content, adult nudity and sexual activity, intoxicants (liquor), cruel and insensitive content, personal disputes, false news, misrepresentation, promotional interviews, or any other objectionable material, or violation of any law enforced in India leading to loss of reputation of the State Government or any of its bodies. Any of these grounds could lead to immediate suspension of empanelment and blacklisting. No penal action is explicitly mentioned in the Policy. The inclusion of terms like “false news” and “misrepresentation” lacks specificity and opens the door to potential misuse and arbitrary as well as subjective enforcement. However, the Policy provides that the influencer shall have the right to appeal before the Government, or any officer authorised by it in this regard, against any order passed by the Competent Authority under this Policy.

The Himachal Pradesh Digital Media Policy, 2024

1. Stated purpose/ aim: To optimally utilise the news web channels, news web portals and social media influencers/handlers to publicise and promote the policies, programmes and development initiatives of the State Government.
2. Medium of dissemination: Through digital media entities which include social media platforms, news web channels, news websites/web portals and influencers/handlers.
3. Target audience for empanelment/ enlistment: The Policy lists 3 types of digital platforms which are eligible for empanelment – news web channels, news websites/portals, social media platforms and influencers/handlers.
4. Specified criteria for empanelment: Social media influencers/handlers must have earned at least 50% of subscribers or followers at least six months prior to the date of application for enlistment. They are segmented into 4 categories (A, B, C, D) based on the number of subscribers/ followers.
5. Payment conditions: In the case of social media influencers, payment will be done according to the categories (A, B, C, D) and the maximum amount prescribed is 2 lakhs for Category A. There is further sub-classification created based on the different social media platforms (YouTube, Facebook and Instagram, Twitter), and the rates for the same are determined based on the type of content and duration of the same.
6. Grounds for cancellation: Suspension of empanelment may be done on the grounds of hate speech, violent content, cruel and insensitive content, false/fake news, anti-state/anti-national content sharing, misrepresentation and any other objectionable material. Indulging in these activities after empanelment will make the entity liable for cancellation of the empanelment and penal action.

Grounds for cancellation such as “anti-state/anti-national content” and “false/fake News” lack specificity and open the door to potential misuse and arbitrary as well as subjective enforcement. The Policy also lacks safeguards or checks, such as an independent committee for content review, publication of cancellation orders, or appeal/grievance redressal mechanisms for digital entities. This absence raises concerns about the Policy being misused by the state to promote its preferred narrative online and suppress speech that it finds unfavourable or unpalatable. It also includes provisions for penal action but does not provide details about the action that can be taken. Such an overreaching provision may have chilling effects on online speech and freedom of speech and expression.

States with unpublished digital media policies

As per media reports, similar initiatives to empanel social media influencers to advertise government schemes have also been undertaken by Rajasthan, Assam, and Sikkim. However, these policies are not available in the public domain. The failure to publicly provide accessible and comprehensive policy documents undermines the state’s transparency and accountability towards citizens. Publicly available policies are essential to ensure that such programs are implemented fairly and effectively. Clear documentation and open channels for public feedback would help mitigate its potential misuse and ensure its ethical and effective implementation. IFF has filed Right to Information (RTI) applications with Rajasthan, Assam and Sikkim seeking copies of the policy documents and asking whether a public consultation was conducted for these policies.

Do these models influence free speech and open internet?

States’ digital media and influencer policies must be evaluated from a user-centric and rights-based perspective, as they often prioritise government interests over those of users. By rewarding influencers solely based on follower counts and relying on broad, ambiguous contractual terms, these policies undermine expertise and objectivity, creating a biased landscape that favours state-approved narratives. This can lead to self-censorship and moral policing, and stifle creativity and free speech while influencing public perceptions of government policies and welfare schemes. Through such policies, highlighting the government’s “schemes and achievements” is being financially incentivised and the focus is only on positive government-approved narratives. Legally, there is nothing unsound or wrong with this approach – it is similar to advertising, which government departments routinely engage in themselves. However, public funds are being used to incentivise a certain kind and category of content over the other, which is capable of going ‘viral’ (given the popularity of digital creators involved) and potentially skewing the narrative. This inherently creates an uneven playing field, favouring empanelled influencers over those critical of the government and solely relying on platforms like Meta or YouTube as a source of income.

There are a number of transparency concerns with such a model as well, like there may not be an obligation to disclose ads/paid partnerships, and thus the audience may not realise these creators are being paid by the government. While it might get revised in the future, the policies raise concerns in their current form. To ensure transparency, there should be clear disclaimers – and not only vague labels like “paid partnership” – so people clearly understand that a creator is receiving government payouts. The lack of transparency regarding the paid nature of content diminishes users’ ability to make informed choices. Further, those who critique state governments or their initiatives may be sidelined, dominated, or even subjugated, leading to a distorted public discourse where the true implications of the policies and schemes are concealed, and informed debate is stifled.

In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India laid down guidelines to restrain the Union of India and all state governments from using public funds on government advertisements which are primarily intended to project individual functionaries of the government or a political party. The Court-appointed Committee came up with ‘Guidelines on Content Regulation of Government Advertising’, which mentions 5 principles of content regulation:

i) advertising campaigns are to be related to government responsibilities,

ii) materials should be presented in an objective, fair and accessible manner and designed to meet the objectives of the campaign,

iii) not directed at promoting political interests of a Party,

iv) campaigns must be justified and undertaken in an efficient and cost- effective manner and

v) advertisements must comply with legal requirements and financial regulations and procedures.

For enforcement of these guidelines, the government set up the Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising and decided that their implementation would proceed proactively, suo moto or on a complaint. However there has been criticism that the Committee has failed to enforce the guidelines regularly, with the last action probably taken back in 2020. This points to a lack of enforcement mechanisms, which offers no real remedy.

Most of the state policies are sprinkled with a vague penalty provision (as it fails to define the terms such as immoral, objectionable etc, exhaustively) which allows for suspension/cancellation of empanelment of those who post objectionable material against the government. The inclusion of such terms creates ambiguity in the enforcement of these policies, and most of these have no redressal system in place to remedy erroneous cancellations.

The Ministry of Consumer Affairs released the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, which attempts to promote ethical advertising and consumer protection. These guidelines stipulate the requirements for the content, style, and format of disclaimers that influencers must include in their product ads, introducing a much-required safeguard that furthers transparency. They also mention certain conditions for non-misleading and valid advertisements (“ads”) such as truthful and honest representation. However, is it unclear how these guidelines are operationalised and how effective they are in safeguarding transparency and accountability.

The aim of digital media/influencer policies should be to have provisions in place not only to enhance accountability but also to ensure that influencers can engage in open discourse without fear of punitive or disproportionate repercussions. States must create a transparent, equitable, and trustworthy environment that maximises the positive impact of social media influencers, ultimately fostering a healthier online information ecosystem where user interests and rights are respected.

This report first appeared on the website of the Internet Freedom Foundation – which works for net neutrality, free expression, privacy and innovation – and has been republished with permission. Read the original here.