Indian cinema had a turbulent 2024. While many films fell short of expectations, there was one bright spot: Pushpa 2: The Rule. The film single-handedly salvaged the year-end box office, pulling in Rs. 100 crore in cinema advertising alone. According to a Madison report, had two or three more titles achieved similar success, cinema advertising expenditure (ADEX) could have topped Rs. 1,000 crore.
Yet as screens struggled to pack audiences, another issue quietly gained momentum: mounting consumer frustration over the swelling length of pre-movie advertisements in multiplexes. The backlash is no longer limited to social media rants — it’s entering courtrooms.
Altaf Fathima, Partner at Saraf and Partners, weighs in on whether there is legal precedent in India or globally where consumers have successfully challenged multiplexes over excessive ad durations. Increasingly, the answer appears to be yes.
In the recent past there are two cases which challenged the multiplex chains advertisements duration, Fathima shares. The Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has imposed a fine of Rs 1.2 lakh on multiplex chain PVR Inox for delaying the movie due to excessive advertisement screenings. The complaint, filed by a Bengaluru resident who purchased three tickets for Rs 825.70 for a show scheduled at 4:05 pm on December 26, 2023, highlighted a delay caused by 25 minutes of advertisements, which included 17 commercials, only two of which were PSAs (Public Service Announcements). The delay resulted in financial losses and inconvenience, as the complainant missed subsequent engagements.
PVR Inox defended its actions, citing mandatory PSAs and security checks but failed to justify the excess advertisement time, which exceeded the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s permissible 10-minute limit for pre-movie ads. The Commission found the advertisements to be a revenue-maximizing tactic, exploiting consumers’ time and rights.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered PVR Inox to compensate the complainant with Rs 20,000 for unfair trade practices, pay Rs 8,000 towards litigation costs, deposit Rs 1 lakh as punitive damages into the consumer welfare fund.
PVR Inox intends to challenge the decision, asserting that it was in line with fair business practices. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to scheduled movie timings and protecting consumer interests.
A PIL and a Policy Debate
Elsewhere, legal challenges have nudged the matter into the policy domain. In the PIL Swati Agrawal v. Union of India (2025), the petitioner, a law student, raised concerns about multiplex cinemas displaying extended advertisements before movie screenings, delaying the start of movies beyond the scheduled showtime. The petitioner argued that this practice inconveniences moviegoers, making them a “captive audience” and violating their right to free choice, referencing I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N. (2007).
The Court acknowledged the issue but held that it was not ripe for judicial adjudication, emphasizing the need for policy-level discussions. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Authorities were instructed to engage with all stakeholders and deliberate on formulating guidelines or regulations regarding showtime adherence and advertisement duration. The petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the matter with the relevant authorities. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Legal Toolkit Against Multiplexes
So, what laws could consumers invoke if they decide to take on the multiplexes?
According to Fathima, relevant Legal Provisions include Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Defines “deficiency in service.”, Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Grants powers to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to adjudicate and award compensation, Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Allows appeals against Commission orders, Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act – A valid contract is formed upon ticket purchase, obligating the multiplex to show the movie at the specified time, Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act– Failure to perform (delayed movie start) allows the consumer to seek compensation and Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act– Multiplex may be liable for compensation due to the delay caused by excessive ads.
As per MIB Guidelines, exceeding 10 minutes of advertisements breaches the Ministry’s stipulated norms. “Hence, Multiplex owners owe a duty to consumers under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Section 10) by fulfilling the contract to provide the movie at the specified time. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Section 2(47)), delays caused by excessive advertisements may constitute “deficiency in service,” violating the consumer’s right to timely service. Therefore, multiplexes must adhere to the agreed showtime, ensuring fair and timely service to consumers,” states Fathima.
The Missing Link in Indian Film Law
But there’s a regulatory gap. As Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner at KS Legal & Associates. points out, the Cinematograph Act, 1952 governs film exhibition but doesn’t explicitly regulate ad durations. This loophole allows multiplexes to stretch pre-movie ad slots to maximize revenue, leaving viewers trapped.
However Chandwani says that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 under Section 2(47) on Unfair Trade Practices can be invoked if theaters mislead consumers by failing to disclose excessive ad durations. Section 2(11) on Deficiency in Service could also be applied, as forcing viewers to watch excessive ads reduces the value of the service paid for. Multiplexes may argue that ads are industry practice, but without prior disclosure, it remains a deceptive trade practice.
Globally, similar cases have been taken up by consumers. In South Korea, a legal battle against excessive ad durations led to theaters being required to disclose ad timings before ticket purchase. In the United States, while such cases have been attempted, they often struggle due to the lack of explicit contractual obligations. However, Indian courts have been increasingly consumer centric, and if challenged under the right legal provisions, multiplexes could be forced to adopt fairer practices regarding ad durations. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) could push for disclosure norms or reasonable limits on ad times, suggests Chandwani.
Legal experts contend that multiplexes are taking advantage of captive audiences. It is a service agreement, and consumers have a right to fair value for the time and money they spend.
For now, as Bollywood looks for its next big blockbuster, courts and regulators may be preparing to rewrite the script on what happens before the movie even starts.