Big Tech and Drug Advertisement Regulation Challenges in India

Since 1927, India has grappled with regulating advertisements for medicinal drugs. The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMRA), prohibits promotion of drugs claiming to cure 54 specified medical conditions. Despite this, the rise of the Internet and Big Tech platforms has complicated enforcement.

Historical Context of Drug Advertisement Laws

India’s concern over misleading drug advertisements dates back nearly a century. The DMRA was enacted to curb false therapeutic claims in advertisements. It bans promotion of drugs for diseases such as diabetes regardless of clinical proof. This law was a pioneering public health safeguard.

Impact of Big Tech on Advertisement Regulation

The Internet has transformed advertising. Big Tech platforms like search engines, social media, and online marketplaces dominate ad spaces. These platforms rarely enforce Indian laws like the DMRA. They allow misleading ads for ayurvedic and homeopathic products, often with unproven claims. Such ads appear under sponsored tags and reach millions.

Discrepancies in Global Advertisement Policies

Big Tech enforces strict health ad policies in the United States. These include pre-screening to block unapproved therapeutic claims. Violations in the US can lead to criminal prosecution. In India, however, these platforms routinely publish ads banned under Indian law. This double standard marks regulatory gaps and corporate indifference.

Legal and Ethical Issues with Big Tech in India

Big Tech claims intermediary status to avoid liability under Indian law. Yet, they act as publishers by actively contracting and accepting payments for ads. This makes them responsible for content. Past legal efforts, such as the 2008 PIL on sex determination ads, failed to enforce penalties. Courts often delay or dilute action, weakening enforcement.

Reasons Behind Big Tech’s Non-Compliance

Several factors explain Big Tech’s disregard of Indian laws. Historical corporate attitudes may undervalue Indian public health. Lack of criminal prosecution and weak judicial follow-up embolden these firms. Legal structures separate Indian subsidiaries from parent companies abroad, preventing extradition of key personnel. This grants effective immunity.

Need for Regulatory Reforms

India must urgently address Big Tech’s violations to protect public health. Criminal complaints against platform managers should be pursued. Regulatory frameworks should require Indian-based personnel accountable to Indian courts. Removing intermediary immunity for non-compliance is essential. Learning from international regulatory models, India can strengthen oversight and enforce laws effectively.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Discuss the challenges of regulating digital advertisements by Big Tech platforms in India in the light of public health concerns.
2. Critically examine the role of intermediary liability provisions in Indian cyber law and their impact on enforcement of content regulations.
3. Explain the significance of sovereignty in regulating multinational corporations, and discuss how India can assert legal authority over foreign digital platforms.
4. With suitable examples, discuss the impact of misleading health advertisements on public trust and healthcare outcomes in India.

Answer Hints:

1. Discuss the challenges of regulating digital advertisements by Big Tech platforms in India in the light of public health concerns.

1. Big Tech platforms often ignore Indian laws like the DMRA, allowing misleading health ads.
2. Internet and social media have replaced traditional media, complicating regulation and monitoring.
3. Advertisements for unproven ayurvedic, homeopathic, and harmful products proliferate under sponsored tags.
4. Platforms lack proactive screening or warnings to advertisers about Indian legal prohibitions.
5. Judicial delays and weak enforcement reduce deterrence against violations.
6. Cross-border ownership and lack of extradition hinder effective legal action against platform managers.

2. Critically examine the role of intermediary liability provisions in Indian cyber law and their impact on enforcement of content regulations.

1. Intermediary liability grants qualified immunity to platforms for user-generated content if they lack knowledge.
2. Big Tech claims intermediary status despite actively contracting, accepting payments, and curating ads, acting as publishers.
3. This immunity creates loopholes allowing platforms to evade responsibility for illegal advertisements.
4. Indian law distinguishes between intermediaries and publishers, but enforcement agencies face difficulty proving publisher role.
5. Failure to revoke immunity for non-compliance weakens regulatory effectiveness.
6. Judicial reluctance to order criminal prosecution further undermines enforcement.

3. Explain the significance of sovereignty in regulating multinational corporations, and discuss how India can assert legal authority over foreign digital platforms.

1. Sovereignty entails a nation’s right to enforce its laws within its territory, including over foreign entities operating therein.
2. Multinational digital platforms often bypass local laws due to cross-border operations and legal separations of subsidiaries.
3. India can require managerial personnel responsible for content policies to be Indian citizens based in India, answerable to Indian courts.
4. Revoking intermediary immunity for non-compliance strengthens India’s regulatory reach.
5. Criminal prosecution and legal reforms targeting platform management increase accountability.
6. Adopting regulatory models from other countries (e.g., US TikTok regulation) can help India enforce sovereignty effectively.

4. With suitable examples, discuss the impact of misleading health advertisements on public trust and healthcare outcomes in India.

1. Misleading ads for unproven ayurvedic and homeopathic cures create false hope, delaying proper medical treatment.
2. Advertisements for harmful products (e.g., cow-urine based cancer treatments) risk public health and safety.
3. False claims undermine trust in legitimate healthcare providers and evidence-based medicine.
4. Widespread availability of such ads on popular platforms normalizes misinformation.
5. Public health burden increases due to self-medication and avoidance of professional advice.
6. Example – Ads promoting cures for diabetes or blood pressure without clinical proof mislead millions of patients.