Pujarini Pradhan was paid ₹60,000 for two brand videos and still had to give her agency a 20% commission on it. The brand, according to Pradhan, had paid that agency ₹2 lakh for the same two videos. In a statement reported by The Indian Express, Pradhan said she was scammed. She left the agency after learning about the discrepancy.

“When I got to know about this, I immediately left the agency and got in touch with some creators and talked about it,” she said in the statement. “So you can understand I was getting scammed.”

Pradhan’s account illustrates a structural problem in creator management: the agency may know the commercial value of a deal, while the creator depends on the agency to disclose it.

That imbalance matters in an industry that has become too large to operate on informal understandings alone. A 2025 study by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) estimated that India has around 2–2.5 million content creators who influence more than 30% of consumers and drive $350–400 billion in consumer spending. However, only 8–10% of these creators earn money from their content, according to the study.

Talent agencies are increasingly central to this market. They source brand partnerships, negotiate fees, manage contracts and coordinate payments, typically in exchange for a commission. But when an agency also controls access to opportunities, commercial information and the terms under which a creator works, the line between representation and control becomes harder to define.

The question is not whether creators need professional management. It is whether the contractual relationship gives them enough independence, transparency and protection.

The information asymmetry behind brand deals

The financial disputes involving Pradhan and gaming creator Kaashvi Hiranandani highlight what can happen when creators cannot independently verify the value of their commercial agreements.

In July 2026, gaming creator Kaashvi Hiranandani, popularly known as Kaash Plays, filed a police complaint against Animesh “Thug” Agarwal, CEO of talent management agency 8Bit Creatives, alleging financial misconduct involving brand deals managed during her association with the agency. Hiranandani alleged that she was told brands had paid less than they agreed to, reducing her share of the earnings.

As reported by Outlook Respawn, her agreement with 8Bit Creatives ran from April 2023 to April 2025, under which she was entitled to 70% of brand-deal income, while the agency received a 30% commission. To illustrate the alleged discrepancy, she cited a hypothetical example: a ₹1 lakh deal was reported to her as worth ₹60,000. In that scenario, she would receive ₹42,000 after the agency’s 30% commission, instead of the ₹70,000 she would have received if the full deal value had been disclosed. She alleged that similar discrepancies occurred across multiple deals, despite her personally covering production costs, including editing, videography and studio expenses.

In a separate report, InsideSport covered the response from Animesh Agarwal, founder of 8Bit Creatives, who described the allegations as “false and misleading”. The allegations are disputed and should not be treated as established findings.

The underlying issue is the same: creators need visibility into the commercial transactions negotiated on their behalf.

Preetraj Singh, co-founder of Creatix Legal, told TCI in an interview, “Contracts should include audit rights that allow creators to seek details of payments received by an agency in connection with their work. There should also be agreements professionally reviewed rather than relying exclusively on AI tools or informal assurances.”

For creators, the ability to verify a deal is as important as the commission they agree to pay.

When does representation become employment?

An agency can exercise significant commercial influence over a creator without necessarily becoming their employer. Under Indian law, the distinction depends on the actual relationship, not simply the label used in a contract.

Singh says, “Individual campaign engagements generally resemble service agreements. The analysis becomes more complicated when an agency engages a creator on an ongoing basis and exercises extensive control over how they work.”

Relevant factors can include fixed monthly payments, prescribed working hours, mandatory deliverables, restrictions on outside work and control over creative decisions. No single factor necessarily determines the outcome; the circumstances must be assessed together.

Pooja Rao Putrevu, co-founder of Annex Legal, said in a statement to TCI that calling a creator an independent contractor does not settle their legal classification. The agreement’s provisions and the actual working arrangement must be examined.

Deepak Bhati, co-founder of DigiWhistle, told TCI that there is a distinction between managing a creator’s business and managing their life. “An agency can negotiate fees, coordinate campaigns and handle payments without controlling a creator’s opinions, personal identity or creative decisions. The objective should be to professionalise a creator’s business rather than impose employee-like control without corresponding clarity and protections,” he says.

This distinction is particularly relevant when agencies impose ongoing quotas, fixed availability or approval requirements that extend beyond individual brand campaigns.

Exclusivity: an investment or a restriction?

Exclusivity is one of the most contested provisions in creator-management agreements. Agencies argue that exclusive representation allows them to invest in brand relationships and negotiate more effectively. Creators, meanwhile, risk limiting their access to income if restrictions are too broad.

Ruchi Khairwar, co-founder of Front Benchers, told TCI that her agency’s relationship with creators is “Partners commercially, independent legally.” Front Benchers requires exclusivity but fixes deliverables separately for each brand campaign rather than imposing a standing content quota. 

Khairwar says, “The agency also removes provisions from brand templates that attempt to impose default 12-month exclusivity, perpetual usage rights or automatic intellectual property assignment.”

Bhati argues, “Exclusivity should have a clearly defined scope, category and duration. Contracts should specify which opportunities fall under the agency’s mandate and which creators can pursue independently.”

Himanshu Chowdhry, founder of Spectal, said in a statement to TCI that he believes exclusive representation is important for managing an artist’s commercial strategy. However, he draws the line at interference with creative decisions. “A good brand partnership fits the artist. The artist should never be reshaped to fit the brand,” he says.

“Exclusivity alone does not establish an employment relationship,” Singh explains. “Its significance depends on the wider arrangement. A restriction designed to prevent endorsements of competing brands is different from a blanket prohibition on outside commercial work, particularly when combined with other forms of control.”

The contractual question is whether the restriction is proportionate, clearly defined and consistent with the independence the agreement claims to preserve.

What the Prajakta Koli case tells us about management contracts

In May 2026, the Bombay High Court dealt with a dispute between OneDigital Entertainment and creator Prajakta Koli arising from a 2015 Performance of Artists Management Agreement. The matter was referred to arbitration.

Under an interim arrangement recorded by the Bombay High Court, Koli was required to honour five existing engagements that OneDigital Entertainment had already entered into with third parties on her behalf, as of February 6, 2026.

Crucially, this arrangement was subject to OneDigital sharing copies of the relevant documents and full revenue details for all five engagements. If OneDigital introduced a new client and Koli agreed to take up the assignment, she would share 10% of the revenue generated with the agency.

The court also clarified that Koli remained free to accept engagements independently, without restrictions from OneDigital. The arrangement will remain in force pending the arbitral tribunal’s decision on the agency’s interim relief application, with both parties’ rights and claims on the merits left open.

This distinction is important: an agency’s right to commission on particular deals does not automatically give it ownership of every commercial opportunity a creator receives.

The terms governing representation, existing commitments and independently sourced work can determine the extent of an agency’s rights when a relationship breaks down.

Who owns the content?

Brand deals can involve rights that extend well beyond the original campaign. Contracts may permit brands to use content in paid advertisements, edit footage, repurpose posts or retain access to creator material after the campaign ends.

Singh says, “Creators should scrutinise how intellectual property and advertising rights are defined, including the platforms on which content can be used, the duration of usage and the scope of any permission to alter it,” adding, “A license allowing a brand to use a video for 30 days on Instagram and Facebook is not necessarily permission to use it indefinitely or publish it on other platforms.”

Khairwar says, “Front Benchers’ standard position is that the creator retains intellectual property ownership, while the brand receives a licence for a defined period.” Her agency pushes back against automatic IP assignment and raw-footage handover unless these are separately negotiated.

Putrevu cautions that intellectual property may rest with the client under work-for-hire arrangements. This makes the precise contractual wording and applicable legal position important; creators should not assume ownership remains with them without checking the agreement.

Termination clauses require similar scrutiny. Notice periods, obligations to complete existing campaigns and penalties for leaving before a minimum term can all affect a creator’s ability to move to another representative.

Does India’s labour framework cover creators?

India’s labour framework recognises different categories of workers, including gig workers. However, this does not mean every creator automatically qualifies for every protection available under the relevant provisions.

Putrevu says, “Some creators may fall within the gig-worker or platform-worker framework depending on the nature of their contractual arrangements. She also identifies a need for further reforms to account for emerging forms of work.”

Singh describes the creator-agency relationship as a regulatory grey area. “Questions remain about whether certain arrangements qualify as employment, contractual work or another form of professional engagement.”

The challenge is that creators can have employee-like obligations without receiving traditional employment benefits. They may be required to route opportunities through an agency, comply with exclusivity provisions and meet campaign commitments, while lacking a fixed salary or guaranteed income.

At the same time, classifying every managed creator as an employee would ignore the fact that many operate independent businesses and use agencies primarily for commercial representation.

A more useful starting point is to examine the nature of the relationship and the protections required when one party exercises substantial control over the other.

The commercial case for transparency

Talent agencies can strengthen a creator’s bargaining position by bringing market knowledge, negotiating better fees and managing administrative work. They can also help creators avoid unsuitable partnerships and unreasonable campaign demands, but that value depends on clear contractual boundaries.

Khairwar says her agency uses 30- or 60-day notice periods to conclude ongoing campaigns and negotiations, without imposing a non-compete restriction. Bhati argues that creators should have transparent information about commissions, payment status, termination rights and the commitments made on their behalf.

Both approaches point to a broader need for accountability: creators should understand what their agencies charge, what the agencies are responsible for delivering and what happens when the relationship ends.

The objective is not to treat every talent agency as an employer, but to ensure that professional representation does not become a means of exercising control without accountability. Creators should not have to trade financial transparency, creative autonomy or the freedom to leave for access to brand deals.

The Bombay High Court’s interim arrangement in Prajakta Koli’s dispute with OneDigital brings this question into focus. Koli’s obligation to honour five existing engagements that OneDigital had entered into with third parties on her behalf was made subject to the agency sharing the relevant documents and full revenue details. As the dispute moves to arbitration, the arrangement highlights the importance of transparency in determining how creators’ commercial commitments are managed and the revenue they generate is accounted for.

We reached out to the content creators mentioned in this article for their comments but did not receive a response at the time of publication.