Film Screening Delays: Legal Challenges of Extended Cinema Ads

INTRODUCTION

“In the new era, time is considered as money; each one’s time is very precious. No one has the right to benefit from another’s time and money.”This quote, aptly stated by M. Shobha, President of the Consumer Forum, reflects the current reality of a frustrating experience shared by all for cinema-goers today.

On July 7, 1896, Indian cinema made its debut with the screening of several short films using the Lumière Brothers’ Cinematograph in Bombay. The Times of India described it as the “miracle of the century.” Since then, films have remained a timeless source of entertainment, enchanting audiences across generations. But what happens when this once-thrilling experience starts to feel more like a burden than a joy?

In today’s world, moviegoers often find themselves not just paying for tickets, but also sacrificing their time. A significant portion, sometimes up to 15 to 20 minutes is consumed by a string of advertisements before the film even begins. This not only eats into the scheduled run-time but also extends the entire movie experience well beyond what was promised on the ticket.

During the pre-independence period, Indian cinema halls offered minimal and unstructured advertising due to a still-developing film industry and restrictions under colonial rule. Advertisements typically consisted of simple static images or government-produced content shown before the movie. Yet, even then, the cinema’s captive audience made it a powerful advertising platform. After independence, as the film industry grew more commercialized, in-theater advertising expanded. With rising audience numbers and growing interest from brands, cinemas became an attractive medium for marketing.

Fast forward to the present, and advertising in cinemas has taken on a new form. What began as brief slides has turned into organized and extended ad blocks that delay the movie’s actual start. While this approach has become a valuable source of income for theaters, it has also sparked public dissatisfaction and legal scrutiny. Consumers are increasingly questioning the fairness of this practice, especially when it infringes upon the advertised movie start time. This evolution reveals how cinema advertising has shifted from being a supplementary promotional tool to a full-fledged commercial strategy, one that brings both financial benefits and ethical dilemmas.

BENEFITS OF CINEMA ADVERTISING

• Fully Engaged and Captive Viewers
  One of the standout benefits of cinema advertising is the undivided attention of moviegoers. Audiences come to the theater voluntarily, looking to unwind and immerse themselves in a story. This attentive mindset makes it easier for advertisements to make an impact, as viewers are more likely to absorb the brand message without external distractions.
• Access to a Broad and Varied Audience
  Movie theaters attract people from all walks of life—families, young adults, older viewers, and more. This wide demographic reach gives advertisers the ability to connect with a broad customer base. Brands can tailor their campaigns to appeal to different audience groups, increasing both visibility and reach.
• Lasting Impressions Through Immersive Content
  Cinema advertising allows for creative, immersive experiences that stick with viewers. From on-screen commercials to interactive promotions in the lobby, these ads can be designed to capture attention and stay in the audience’s memory. The emotional atmosphere of the cinema also helps reinforce positive associations with the brand.
• Strategically Aligned Messaging
  Another benefit of cinema advertising is the opportunity to align ads with the content of the film. For instance, a tech brand might promote a new gadget during a science fiction movie, creating a natural fit that feels more relevant to the audience. This smart alignment enhances message effectiveness and relatability.
• Exclusive Environment with Minimal Distractions
  Unlike digital platforms where users can skip ads or become distracted, cinemas offer an exclusive, distraction-free space. Viewers are less likely to use their phones or divert their attention, meaning brands get uninterrupted screen time. This focus increases the chance that viewers will retain and respond to the ad.
• Prolonged Visibility and Repetition
  Cinema advertising often extends beyond the screen. Brands can showcase themselves through lobby displays, merchandise, and branded packaging like popcorn buckets or drink cups. This continuous exposure reinforces brand recognition, which is crucial for recall and consumer action later on.

Section 2(47) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, talks about the definition of “unfair trade practice,” covering any deceptive or unfair methods used to promote the sale, use, or supply of goods or services. In this context, prolonged pre-movie advertisements that delay the scheduled film start time fall under this category, as they may mislead viewers about when the main feature will actually begin.

Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines a misleading advertisement as one that falsely describes a product or service, misleads consumers about its nature or quality, makes deceptive claims, or hides important information. In the case of extended cinema ads, the issue isn’t with the ad content but with the lack of disclosure. If moviegoers are told the film starts at a certain time but are made to sit through 15–20 minutes of ads without prior notice, it misleads them about the actual service being offered. This concealment of key information about the viewing experience can fall under the definition of a misleading advertisement.

Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to take action against misleading advertisements. If an ad or service misleads consumers or conceals essential information, the CCPA can order its discontinuation, impose a penalty of up to ₹10 lakh, and even prohibit the endorser from future promotions. In the context of extended cinema advertisements, where theaters fail to inform consumers that the actual film will begin 15–20 minutes after the stated showtime due to prolonged ads, this non-disclosure may qualify as a misleading practice. This falls under Section 21(1), which states:

“Where the Central Authority is satisfied after investigation that any advertisement is false or misleading and is prejudicial to the interest of any consumer or is in contravention of consumer rights, it may, by order, direct the concerned trader or manufacturer or endorser to discontinue such advertisement or to modify the same in such manner and within such time as may be specified in that order.”

If such a matter is brought to the CCPA’s attention, it may direct cinema chains to correct the practice or face penalties, as it violates consumer rights under Sections 2(28) (misleading advertisement) and 2(47) (unfair trade practice).

CASE

Abhishek MR, a consumer from Bengaluru, had filed a case against PVR Cinemas and INOX (now merged with PVR) for the delayed screening of the film Sam Bahadur on December 26, 2023.

The complainant, Abhishek MR, attended a screening of Sam Bahadur on December 26, 2023, at a PVR cinema. Despite the movie’s scheduled start time of 4.05 pm, it began only at 4.30 pm after 25 minutes of advertisements. This disrupted his schedule, as he had planned to return to work immediately after the film, the law news website reported. Frustrated, he filed a case against PVR, INOX, and BookMyShow, Bar and Bench reported.

The court cleared BookMyShow of any liability, clarifying that the platform does not have authority over movie scheduling. Responsibility for the inconvenience caused by prolonged advertisements was placed solely on PVR Cinemas and INOX. Emphasizing the value of time, the commission stated that compelling viewers to sit through lengthy ads before the movie begins is an unfair burden. It also pointed out that many people plan their entertainment around busy schedules, and such delays are unjustified.

The district consumer forum observed that PVR and INOX cannot “engage in unfair practice and waste movie goer’s time by showing long commercial ads during the time slot meant to exhibit the movie itself.”

PVR Cinemas and INOX defended their actions by stating they were obligated to screen public service announcements (PSAs) to promote public awareness. While the consumer forum acknowledged this requirement, it pointed out that government guidelines restrict PSAs to a maximum of 10 minutes and advised that they be shown before the film’s scheduled start time.

Additionally, PVR and INOX argued that extended advertisements helped accommodate late-arriving viewers who may be delayed due to security checks or other reasons. However, the commission rejected this argument, stating that it was unfair to inconvenience viewers who arrive on time just to accommodate latecomers. The decision underscores the importance of consumer rights and respect for people’s time, setting a significant precedent for more transparent and fair practices in the film exhibition industry.

The court also ordered the multiplex chains to pay the complainant Rs 20,000 as compensation for the inconvenience and mental distress he experienced, along with Rs 8,000 to cover the costs of filing the case. Further, PVR and INOX were fined Rs 1 lakh as punitive damages for their unfair practices. PVR Cinemas and INOX were also directed to pay Rs 1 lakh as a penalty for adopting unfair business practices. As per the order dated February 15, this amount must have been deposited into the consumer welfare fund within 30 days.

PIL

SWATI AGRAWAL Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

In January 2025, Swati Agrawal, a law student from Gwalior, filed a PIL in the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the practice of showing lengthy advertisements before films, calling it unfair to viewers. While the court acknowledged the concern, it directed her to approach the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting instead of issuing a ruling. The court also highlighted the importance of valuing viewers’ time and urged authorities to engage in constructive dialogue with stakeholders, stressing the need to balance ad revenue with consumer convenience in cinemas.

Justices Anand Pathak and Hirdesh, urged both the Central and State governments to engage in constructive dialogue with all concerned parties. The bench emphasized that time is a critical resource and suggested that it is up to the authorities to find a balanced solution that respects consumer convenience while addressing industry concerns. This reflects a judicial push toward policy-level discussions over imposing immediate legal restrictions.

The petitioner urged cinema halls to disclose accurate movie start times so viewers can plan accordingly. She cited a U.S. proposal from Connecticut requiring transparency in film schedules and suggested a similar law in India. As an alternative, she proposed tickets show both the theater entry time and the exact movie start time. The Court allowed her to submit her petition and recommendations to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, directing authorities to evaluate the issue fairly with input from all stakeholders.

India v US (Comparison of the system with respect to the pre extended cinema advertisements)

In India, moviegoers often face prolonged advertisements before films, sometimes lasting up to 20 minutes, without prior disclosure on tickets or at booking. This lack of transparency has led to rising consumer dissatisfaction and legal scrutiny. While public service announcements (PSAs) are mandated, many cinemas extend commercial ad durations beyond reason, causing inconvenience. Despite this, there are currently no specific legal provisions that require theaters to declare the actual film start time, although courts have encouraged discussion among stakeholders to address this growing issue.

In contrast, the United States offers a more consumer-friendly cinema experience through better regulation and transparency. In some states, such as Connecticut, proposed laws require theaters to clearly display both the scheduled and actual start times of movies. This practice allows viewers to manage their time more effectively and avoids unnecessary frustration. US theaters generally limit pre-show content including ads and trailers to about 10-15 minutes, aligning with consumer expectations and maintaining audience goodwill through fairer time management.

Overall, India’s cinema advertising practices remain largely revenue-driven with minimal oversight, while the US has taken steps, both regulatory and industry-led, to prioritize viewer experience and time. The growing legal attention in India signals a shift toward similar reforms, aiming to strike a balance between business interests and consumer rights.

The Indirect Role of the Cinematographer’s Act,1952

The Cinematograph Act, 1952, while primarily focused on regulating film certification and exhibition, plays an indirect yet important role in the issue of extended pre-movie advertisements in Indian cinemas. Under this Act, the Central Government through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued guidelines mandating the screening of Public Service Announcements (PSAs) before films, with a specified limit of around 10 minutes. These PSAs are meant to promote messages of national or social importance, such as health and road safety, and are to be shown either before the movie or during the interval. However, many cinema halls have used this mandate to justify excessively long commercial ad blocks, often causing delays beyond the advertised showtime. While the Act itself does not directly cap commercial advertisement durations, it provides a legal foundation for the government to regulate film-related exhibition practices. Additionally, the licensing of cinema halls is under the purview of state governments, which can enforce stricter conditions around film timing and viewer welfare. In cases where advertisements are disproportionately extended without informing consumers, this may also fall under the scope of the Consumer Protection Act as a misleading or unfair practice. Thus, although the Cinematograph Act does not explicitly govern cinema advertising, it intersects with broader legal and regulatory mechanisms aimed at ensuring fair and transparent moviegoing experiences.

CONCLUSION

This research aims to critically examine how prolonged in-cinema advertisements, shown before the start of films, affect consumers from legal, social, and constitutional standpoints. At the center of this study is the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly its treatment of unfair trade practices. The practice of cinemas making audiences wait 15 to 20 minutes due to advertisements without prior disclosure raises serious concerns about deficiency in service and misrepresentation. Consumers pay not just for the film but also for a timely and comfortable experience. When the advertised showtime on a ticket does not match the actual start of the movie, it becomes a clear case of service failure. This research also explores the psychological and social impact of this practice. For many, visiting a movie theatre is a planned leisure activity squeezed into tight schedules. Extended ads disrupt those plans, diminish trust in cinema operators, and can lead to frustration, reduced satisfaction, and a perception of being misled or manipulated. Transparency in timing is therefore not just a matter of logistics but one of consumer dignity and autonomy.

The study also examines existing legal mechanisms, including the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to assess how well Indian laws regulate the issue. While the Act allows the exhibition of public service announcements, there is little oversight over extended commercial ads, creating a loophole that allows theatres to prioritize revenue over viewer experience. The licensing powers of state governments and the role of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting are also reviewed to understand the regulatory gaps. In contrast, the research brings in a comparative perspective by studying how similar issues are managed in the United States, particularly referencing laws like the proposed legislation in Connecticut, which requires cinemas to clearly disclose the actual movie start time. The goal is to identify possible policy lessons India can adopt to better balance commercial interests and consumer rights.

Additionally, the paper touches upon the constitutional implications, particularly whether non-disclosure of actual showtimes and the forced viewing of lengthy ads impinge on a citizen’s right to make informed choices and manage personal time, an element that could be linked to the broader framework of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty. By piecing together these legal, social, and policy dimensions, the research highlights the urgent need for reform. It proposes practical solutions such as mandating dual timing disclosure on tickets entry time and actual film start time alongside stricter enforcement of ad duration limits and clearer consumer redressal mechanisms. Overall, this paper advocates for a cinema system that is not just entertaining but also fair, transparent, and respectful of viewers’ rights and time.

OPINION

As part of this non-doctrinal research, a set of 50 structured surveys was distributed to regular moviegoers across various age groups and locations. The aim was to gather real-world insights into the audience’s experience with prolonged in-cinema advertisements. The findings revealed a consistent pattern, every respondent reported encountering extended advertisements that delayed the actual start of the movie by at least 15 to 20 minutes beyond the showtime printed on the ticket. Most participants expressed frustration, stating that the delay disrupted their schedules and reduced their overall movie-watching satisfaction. Many also felt misled, as they believed they were not informed about the actual start time of the film beforehand. This widespread dissatisfaction across all responses underscores a significant gap between consumer expectations and the current practices of cinema operators, further validating the need for better regulation and transparency in showtime disclosures.

In conclusion, addressing the issue of prolonged pre-movie advertisements requires a balanced and consumer-friendly approach. If cinemas begin clearly mentioning the actual start time of the movie, instead of only listing the general showtime, it would allow viewers to plan their time more effectively and avoid unnecessary waiting. Alongside this, enforcing a reasonable cap on the duration of advertisements can enhance the moviegoing experience without significantly affecting cinema revenue. Most importantly, there is a strong need to reinforce consumer protection mechanisms under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to ensure greater transparency and accountability. Strengthening these laws to prevent the concealment or misrepresentation of actual start times will empower consumers and promote fairer practices within the cinema industry.

 References:

1. M Shobha, Consumer Forum President. (2025, February). Bengaluru Consumer Court ruling on extended cinema advertisements. The Indian Express. Retrieved from https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/pvr-fined-1-28-wasting-ads-9843211/
2.  https://gingermediagroup.com/cinema-advertising-in-india/ 

3.  Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India), s 21(1), 2(28), 2(47)

4.  Karnataka HC stays order directing PVR to compensate Bengaluru man for delaying movie screening with excessive ads, India, available at: https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/karnataka-hc-stays-order-directing-pvr-to-compensate-bengaluru-man-for-delaying-movie-screening-with-excessive-ads-3441321?utm_source=chatgpt.com 

5. Bengaluru man wins case against PVR-INOX for wasting time with 25-min ads, available at https://www.indiatoday.in/india/law-news/story/bengaluru-man-sues-wins-case-against-pvr-inox-for-wasting-time-with-long-ads-in-theatre-2682135-2025-02-19
6.  Tired of long cinema ads? Bengaluru man sued PVR-INOX over 25 minutes ad and won, India, available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com//magazines/panache/tired-of-long-cinema-ads-bengaluru-man-sued-pvr-inox-over-25-minutes-ad-wait-and-won/articleshow/118362308.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

7. Swati Agrawal c UOI & Ors, available at https://lawchakra.in/high-court/pil-lengthy-ads-in-cinemas/ 

8. https://lawchakra.in/high-court/pil-lengthy-ads-in-cinemas/