Deceptive Ads and it's potential health risk-socio legal concern
Abstract
Misleading
advertising, especially in the health and well-being industry, has come to be a
pressing socio-legal issue in India, entangling consumer rights, public health,
and regulatory failure. Misleading adverts tend to target vulnerable groups by
making unsubstantiated health claims, cure-all remedies, or harmful products,
thereby contributing to delayed medical intervention, financial misuse, and
heightened health hazards. Notwithstanding India's regulatory
environment—comprising the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and guidelines issued
by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI)—enforcement is patchy,
allowing false advertisements to spread through digital media, television, and
print. The socio-legal consequences are significant. Low-income populations,
along with those with poor health literacy, are disproportionately impacted,
posing moral considerations regarding corporate responsibility and state duty.
Examples related to fairness creams, slimming products, and Ayurvedic
preparations without regulation point to systemic weaknesses in pre-screening,
punishments, and consumer education. The fact that cultural credibility towards
traditional treatments and celebrity endorsements renders it difficult to
comply with ethical standards of advertisement adds additional layers to the
problem. This report contends that a multi-dimensional strategy must be
adopted: fortifying legal frameworks with more severe penalties, improving
inter-agency coordination, and building public awareness through online literacy
initiatives. It calls for policymakers, healthcare experts, and civil society
to cooperate and reconcile commercial freedoms with public health needs.
Combating misleading advertisements is not just a legal responsibility but an
ethical imperative to protect India's health space and support consumer dignity
in a rapidly commercialized world.
Keywords: Deceptive
Advertising, Consumer Protection, Health Misinformation, Regulatory Framework,
Digital Media, Public Health Ethics.
Introduction
Over the last
few years, the incidence of misleading
advertising in India's health and wellness market has emerged as a serious
socio-legal issue, affecting consumer rights, public health, and regulatory
authority. Manipulative health claims, hyperbolic solutions, and the promotion
of potentially harmful products are widely used by advertisements to target
vulnerable consumers. The outcome is a postponement of medical care,
money-making exploitation, and increased health risks. Despite regulatory laws
like the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 and guidelines set by the Advertising
Standards Council of India (ASCI), their enforcement does not persist
uniformly, enabling the proliferation of deceptive advertisements on social
media, television, and print media. The effect is particularly severe for
low-income groups and those with weak health literacy. This report examines the
systemic issues arising from manipulative health-related advertisements in
India, such as regulatory loopholes, cultural acceptability of traditional
remedies, and celebrity endorsements. It recommends an integrated approach
including stricter sanctions, better regulatory coordination, and greater
public awareness to balance commercial freedoms with public health
requirements, ensuring consumer protection in a highly commercialized setting.
Review of Literature:
Several scholars and legal experts have explored the intricate relationship
between deceptive advertising and consumer protection. According to Prof. Avtar
Singh, misleading advertisements fall under "unfair trade practices,"
warranting both civil and penal consequences. In his work on consumer
jurisprudence, Prof. S.K. Verma emphasizes that vulnerable populations are at
greater risk due to the aggressive tactics used by health marketers.
A report
by ASCI (2022) noted a 40% rise in deceptive ads related to health and
wellness, with digital platforms accounting for more than 70% of these cases.
Legal scholar M.P. Jain highlights that mere codification without active
enforcement renders statutory provisions toothless.
Additionally,
international reviews like those published in the Journal of Health
Communication emphasize how influencer culture on social media, combined with
low digital literacy, intensifies the problem in countries like India. These
studies collectively underscore the urgent need for a multidisciplinary
approach to address this socio-legal issue.
Research Methodology:
This paper is doctrinal in nature and relies on both primary and secondary
sources. Primary sources include statutes such as the Consumer Protection Act,
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and IT Act. Secondary data is drawn from scholarly
articles, ASCI reports, case studies, international legal frameworks, and
official reports from enforcement agencies. Comparative analysis is undertaken
by evaluating frameworks used in the EU, USA, and Australia. Case studies are
incorporated to substantiate the socio-legal arguments. The methodology is
descriptive, analytical, and comparative to enable holistic evaluation.
Regulatory Framework and Consumer
Protection Laws:
India has
instituted several legislative instruments to regulate deceptive advertising
practices, particularly within the health and wellness industry. These laws aim
to ensure transparency, consumer safety, and ethical conduct across media
platforms. However, their effectiveness depends on enforcement mechanisms,
technological adaptability, and inter-agency coordination.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is the primary legislation dealing with consumer
rights and misleading advertisements. Section 2(28) defines a misleading
advertisement as one that falsely describes a product or service, provides a
false guarantee, or misleads the consumer regarding its nature, substance,
quality, or quantity. It also includes representations that would constitute
unfair trade practices or conceal essential information.
Section 21
of the Act empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to act
either suo moto or on complaints. The CCPA is authorized to order the
withdrawal or modification of misleading advertisements and to impose penalties
on defaulting manufacturers, service providers, or endorsers. Additionally,
Section 89 provides for imprisonment up to two years and/or a fine of up to ₹10
lakhs, which can increase to five years and ₹50 lakhs for subsequent offenses.
These provisions reflect a strong legal stance, although their practical
implementation remains uneven.
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
This Act,
administered by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI),
governs all aspects of food safety, including the marketing and labeling of
food products. It prohibits the dissemination of false or unsubstantiated
health and nutritional claims through advertisements.
Section 24
explicitly forbids advertisements that mislead consumers about the nature,
substance, or quality of food items. Section 53 empowers authorities to levy
fines up to ₹10 lakhs against violators. These provisions are crucial in a
landscape where food products often exploit consumer health anxieties with
exaggerated benefits, yet enforcement remains a challenge due to the high
volume of digital content.
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
The Drugs
and Cosmetics Act regulates the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of
drugs and cosmetics, including their advertisement. It aims to prevent the
dissemination of false claims regarding medical efficacy and to ensure the
safety and quality of such products.
Section 18
of the Act prohibits advertisements that promote misbranded, adulterated, or
spurious drugs, or that falsely claim to treat specific diseases. Section 27
provides for imprisonment of up to three years and/or a fine for violators.
Furthermore, Rule 106 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, restricts
advertisements promoting unverified treatments for serious ailments like
cancer, diabetes, and sexually transmitted diseases. These rules are critical
in protecting public health but are often undermined by unchecked claims,
particularly by unregulated Ayurvedic and herbal brands.
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
The Indian
Penal Code supplements consumer protection laws by criminalizing fraudulent
practices that cause harm. Sections 415 and 420 are particularly relevant to
misleading advertisements.
Section
415 defines "cheating" as dishonestly or fraudulently inducing a
person to act in a manner that causes harm or loss. Misleading health
advertisements that induce consumers to purchase ineffective or unsafe products
fall squarely within this definition. Section 420 prescribes punishment for
cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, with penalties
including imprisonment up to seven years and a fine. These provisions offer a
strong deterrent but are rarely invoked in consumer disputes.
Information Technology Act, 2000 and Intermediary
Guidelines, 2021
With the
advent of digital media, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the
Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code, 2021, play a critical
role in monitoring online advertisements. These rules impose obligations on
digital platforms to remove harmful or misleading content promptly.
Section 79
of the IT Act provides conditional immunity to intermediaries for
user-generated content but mandates prompt action upon notice of objectionable
material. The 2021 Guidelines further require platforms to implement a
grievance redressal mechanism and ensure removal of flagged content within a
stipulated timeframe. Non-compliance may result in the loss of intermediary
protection, rendering platforms directly liable. Given the scale of digital
advertising, these rules are vital, though their execution demands stronger
technological support and oversight.
Competition Act, 2002
The
Competition Act, 2002, addresses misleading advertisements from a market
regulation standpoint. Section 4 prohibits the abuse of dominant market
positions, which includes disseminating deceptive advertisements to gain unfair
competitive advantage.
The
Competition Commission of India (CCI) is empowered to investigate such
practices and impose penalties, which may include a percentage of the company’s
turnover. This provision is instrumental in curbing unethical competition
through false marketing but is not frequently employed for misleading ads in
the health sector, highlighting a gap in cross-functional regulatory
enforcement.
Socio-Legal Implications of Deceptive Health Ads
The
ill-health mis-ads in India have very serious socio-legal consequences,
especially on the underprivileged and medically vulnerable ones. These ads are
not only misleading but also dangerous. Misinformation sometimes leads a person
to take health-related decisions which delay diagnosis, worsen the condition,
or even lead to abandonment of clinically proved treatment.
Legally,
it raises an important concern about the liability of advertisers as well as ad
media, and even endorsers. Socially, it will widen the gap between the haves
and havenots in accessing accurate health information. This other group is less
educated or financially weaker, and thus, more susceptible to pseudo-scientific
claims. In a country where those who would trust their healthcare entirely in
"natural" remedies and homegrown experts, many are likely to accept
such claims at face value.
Law would
have to do justice to such a scenario: it would have to define consumer
vulnerability from a socio-economic standpoint. Such differences would imprint
inequality into advertising laws ignoring such conditions. There is an urgency
to sync health advertising ethically against codes which prioritize public
safety and not profit motives.
CASE STUDIES
A. Patanjali's Claims about Coronavirus Cure
In the
year 2020, it was said that the Patanjali Ayurved had claimed that it could
cure the disease by its product called Coronil. Such claims were gloriously
disseminated by the media until the Ministry of AYUSH stopped this nonsense for
being unbacked by scientific evidence. This further marveled public outrage and
regulatory interventions Directly or indirectly, the product continued to be
sold in the market under the label of “immunity booster.” This shines the light
on the inadequacies of enforcement and how the brand holds campus over public
perception.
B. Fairness Cream and Color Manipulation of Skin
Pioneers
in the past have been Hindustan Unilever (Fair & Lovely) who have sold the
idea that beauty and success go hand in hand with fairer skin. Most of these
advertisements include celebrities peddling the idea that sometimes
unverifiable claims about skin transformations are made. It took several years
of sustained criticism to actually alter any incorrect applications of this
idea by some brands, and even then, the fundamental catchy tagline really
remains the same.
C. Slimming Pills and Herbal Cures
There are
hundreds of advertisements bombarding us every day on television and in print
advertising about herbal capsules which claim to perform miraculous weight loss
miracles or sometimes clear the chronic diseases. Most of them are not approved
by FSSAI; those have no clinical trials but prove to be a serious threat to
health. Some of the online platforms often circulate the information in an
echoed chamber of claims, protected by weak intermediary enforcement.
They
mostly depict a scenario of how loopholes in regulation and delayed action on
enforcement hurt consumers.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
European Union
The EU
2005/29/EC Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices sets a robust legal
framework prohibiting misleading health claims in advertisements across member
states. This Directive ensures that consumers are protected from unfair
commercial practices that could distort their purchasing decisions or harm
their health. In addition to this, dietary supplements and foodstuffs marketed
in the EU must be clearly and unambiguously labeled, including mandatory health
warnings where appropriate. This helps consumers make informed choices and
mitigates the risk of adverse health effects. Enforcement agencies in the EU
play a vital role in upholding these standards. National authorities are
empowered to enforce consumer protection laws aggressively, often coordinating efforts
across borders within the EU single market. Such enforcement actions include
the ability to bring legal cases against violators, impose penalties, and
require the removal of misleading advertisements promptly, signifying a strong
regulatory environment focused on consumer safety and transparency.
United States: FTC and FDA
In the
United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) jointly regulate health-related advertising. The FTC
primarily monitors advertising to prevent deceptive or unfair commercial
practices, especially those involving health claims for dietary supplements and
other products. The agency has consistently taken enforcement actions against
companies making unproven health claims, filing numerous lawsuits and issuing
cease-and-desist orders to protect consumers from false marketing. The FDA,
meanwhile, regulates product labeling and promotional materials related to
drugs and medical devices, issuing warnings and compliance orders for false or misleading
claims. The collaborative relationship between the FTC and FDA strengthens
enforcement through shared information, coordinated investigations, and
complementary responsibilities. This ensures a comprehensive approach to
consumer protection, combining the FTC's advertising oversight with the FDA’s
authority on product safety and labeling.
Australia
Australia’s
regulatory environment is marked by the close integration of the Therapeutic
Goods Administration (TGA) with consumer protection and competition laws
overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The TGA
regulates the advertising of therapeutic goods to ensure that claims are
truthful, balanced, and not misleading. Its enforcement actions include rapid
removal of misleading advertisements and prevention notices to halt
non-compliant promotions. The ACCC plays a proactive and complementary role by
enforcing fair trading laws and protecting consumers from deceptive conduct in
the marketplace more broadly. Together, these agencies provide strong oversight
that prevents misleading health marketing from reaching consumers. Their
combined regulatory framework fosters a market where consumer interests are
safeguarded through timely enforcement and clear legal expectations for
businesses.
Implications for India
These
international models highlight that while India possesses laws addressing
misleading health claims, the effectiveness of consumer protection ultimately
hinges on robust enforcement mechanisms. India faces unique socio-economic and
digital challenges that require adapting external enforcement frameworks
thoughtfully rather than replicating them wholesale. Strengthening enforcement
capacity, instituting coordinated regulatory actions, and tailoring strategies
to India’s digital advertising landscape will be critical. Learning from the
EU’s coordinated cross-border enforcement, the US’s collaborative agency model,
and Australia’s integrated regulatory approach can guide India in building a
more effective system that protects consumers from misleading health claims in
a rapidly evolving market environment. This strategic adaptation will be
essential for promoting transparency and safeguarding public health in India’s
dynamic consumer landscape.
Critical Evaluation of Celebrity and Influencer Endorsements
In India,
celebrity and influencer endorsements do not just influence public perception
and consumer behavior, especially in the health and wellness segment. People in
Bollywood, cricket, and social media have massive following bases and give
credibility to the advertised products. This body of influence carries with it
a heavy load of ethical responsibility, particularly with regard to health
claims that can often have an impact on public well-being. There are many provisions
in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, that put the onus on an endorser in case
of misleading advertisements. Practically, however, enforcement is slack and
ineffective. Many endorsements slip away from legal scrutiny, such as those
concerning fairness creams or Ayurvedic products, letting misleading claims
remain unpunished.
In India,
the lack of any such code of ethics for social media marketing works against
it. Unlike the traditional media, the social media platforms allow influencers
to circumvent traditional regulatory checkpoints that come in the way of health
products' promotional activities, often neither monitored nor regulated. In
light of this, causing realistic expectations solely by guidelines published by
several bodies such as the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) is
unlikely to offer any real change. This is because the nomenclature of
guidelines implies non-binding nature, which greatly undermines their ability
to limit false and misleading claims.
There need
to be immediate and wide-ranging changes to the regulations that would
prescribe a heavy burden of due diligence on endorsers before making any health
product recommendation. Such regulation would include strict verification of
claims, full disclosure of any material connection, and disclaimers on the
nature and limitation of endorsements. Furthermore, enforcement should
prioritize speed and strength to discourage non-compliance and safeguard
consumer interests. In conclusion, it is very important to establish a culture
of accountability for celebrities and influencers to protect public health,
ensuring that their promotional messages are truthful and responsible.
Suggestions
To stop
misleading ads in India, we need to do several things, learning from what other
countries do well. First, the government needs to get tougher on companies that
lie in their ads, especially online. Think of it like how the European Union is
making big online platforms responsible for what they show.
Second, we
need to teach people how to spot fake ads. Just like Canada does, we can run
big campaigns to tell people about their rights and how to report bad ads. And
we need to make it easy for people to complain, like in the Netherlands, with
simple online systems.
Third, the
advertising industry itself needs to be more responsible. We can make the
Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) stronger, like the UK's
advertising watchdog, so they can catch more bad ads. And companies should have
their own rules about being honest, like they do in Japan.
Finally,
we can use technology to help. We can use computer programs that can find fake
ads automatically, like how some companies are already doing. And we can try
new things like blockchain, which can make it easier to see where ads come from
and who's responsible for them.
Basically,
we need the government, companies, and people to work together, using the best
ideas from around the world, to make sure ads in India are truthful and fair.
CONCLUSION
A nexus of
consumer exploitation, glaring inadequacies in legal enforcement, and ethics
negligence are the many faces of deceptive advertisement in health. Besides
infringing on consumer rights, they threaten serious health risks in a
diversified, unequal society like India.
A lot of
acts-from Consumer Protection Act to Drugs and Cosmetics Act- are present. But
the only thing not present is strong, real-time enforcement and proactive
consumer education. The digital age while empowering has further complicated
the problem by aiding the process of misinformation propagation.
This has
demonstrated that a multi-pronged approach will be most effective. Legal
reforms must be accompanied by public awareness campaigns, stronger
institutional coordination, and ethical advertisement practices. Drawing from
global models could inform India's path, but solutions should be
situationalized to its unique cultural, digital, and socio-economic contexts.
Policymakers,
health experts, regulators, and civil society must raise their voices together
to address the looming menace. After all, public health and consumer dignity
are too vital to be endangered in the name of profit.
Post a Comment