Deceptive Ads and it's potential health risk-socio legal concern

 

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.