Answer

Introduction

Despite the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954 prohibiting advertisements of miracle cures, digital platforms have created a parallel marketplace of unverified therapeutic claims. In the era of Big Tech and cross border digital- media, profit-driven algorithms outpace regulation, allowing misleading health claims to bypass Indian oversight and exploit public vulnerability.

Body

Challenges In Enforcing Indian Drug Advertising Laws In The Era Of Big Tech

• Big Tech hides behind ‘intermediary immunity’: Although paid ads are approved and published by platforms, they claim to be mere intermediaries, avoiding accountability.
  Eg: Platforms previously claimed intermediary status under the PNDT Act, avoiding responsibility for illegal sex-selection ads.
• No DMRA-specific compliance filters: Platforms do not screen ads against DMRA’s banned therapeutic claims list.
  Eg: Searches like “ayurveda + blood pressure tablets” and “homeopathy + diabetes” show sponsored ads, directly prohibited under DMRA.
• Profit motive over public health: Sponsored ads for miracle cures generate revenue and are thus aggressively pushed by platforms.
  Eg: Marketing teams sign contracts for ads claiming cures through ayurvedic/homeopathic medicines, prioritizing ad income.
• Weak enforcement and slow judicial process: Legal action rarely results in penalties and absence of criminal prosecutions reduces deterrence.
  Eg: The PIL on PNDT Act violations dragged for nine years, ending with only formation of a committee without any accountability.
• Regulatory double standards: Big Tech exercises strict ad screening in developed markets but dismisses Indian drug law compliance.
  Eg: Platforms block misleading therapeutic ads in the U.S., yet allow cancer-cure ads using cow-urine products in India.

Challenges In Enforcing Laws In Cross-Border Digital Media

• Jurisdictional limitations: Platforms operate and manage ad policy decisions from overseas and Indian regulators cannot easily enforce accountability.
  Eg: Ad systems are controlled from the U.S., even though ads are displayed to Indian users.
• No legal access to decision-makers: Managers responsible for ad policies are based abroad and outside Indian legal reach.
• Corporate structuring shields liability: Indian subsidiaries argue that they don’t “own” the platform and shift accountability to parent companies abroad.
• Algorithmic targeting makes violations hard to trace: Ads change dynamically, making monitoring, evidence collection, and takedown difficult.
  Eg: Video ads by influencers/godmen claiming “cure for all diseases” appear automatically in user feeds.
• Power asymmetry weakens enforcement: Economic dependence on digital ecosystems weakens the state’s bargaining power.

Conclusion

To protect public health, India must shift from reactive takedowns to enforceable liability, making platforms legally accountable as publishers, not intermediaries. Linking DMRA violations to loss of intermediary immunity and criminal prosecution of responsible managerial personnel will thus align digital governance with the constitutional mandate of ‘Right to Health.’

DOWNLOAD PDF