YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has sparked a debate by questioning Shah Rukh Khan’s endorsement of paan masala products, given the actor’s substantial USD 1.4 billion net worth. Rathee argued Khan’s wealth allows him to forgo such deals, while critics lauded the call for responsible influence. Counterarguments cited contract complexities and legal advertising frameworks.
Safe to say, Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan is not just an icon but is also a massive financial entity. His recent inclusion in the prestigious Hurun India Rich List 2025 confirms this, placing his estimated net worth at a staggering USD 1.4 billion. YouTuber Dhruv Rathee ignited a major debate on social media, specifically on X (formerly Twitter), by directly addressing Khan’s continuous promotion of certain paan masala products.
Dhruv Rathee challenges SRK on endorsements
In a widely shared video, Rathee questioned the logic behind one of the world’s wealthiest actors who has lent his name and image to products that have been controversially linked to oral cancer risks.Furthermore, Rathee argued that given Khan’s massive financial portfolio, the annual income generated from these specific endorsement deals would be a mere fraction of the passive income generated by his USD 1.4 billion in assets. He suggested that Shah Rukh Khan’s substantial wealth already provides him with more than enough liquidity and financial freedom to terminate such contracts.
Shah Rukh Khan’s financial portfolio
For starters, Shah Rukh Khan’s immense wealth has been built on a diversified empire. For starters, it includes his production house, Red Chillies Entertainment. Secondly, it also includes his stake in the IPL team Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR). Thirdly, it includes numerous high-profile brand endorsements. However, this financial success has recently brought renewed scrutiny from public figures regarding his choice of endorsements.
Response to Dhruv Rathee’s video across social media platforms
The video instantly polarized social media. Critics of the actor agreed with Rathee, calling for Khan—who is often seen as a moral figure—to use his influence responsibly by distancing himself from health-risk products. They pointed to the detrimental public health message sent by the country’s biggest star.Conversely, some netizens were quick to push back, offering several counterarguments. Many cited the complexities of existing endorsement contracts and legal agreements that make immediate termination difficult. Others brought up regulatory issues, noting that as long as these products are legally permitted to advertise, actors are merely operating within the existing legal framework. Furthermore, some suggested that while the net worth is high, the actual liquidity (cash readily available) might not be as straightforward as Rathee has implied.
