Tackling misleading medical ads amid digital boom

In a move to crack down on misleading medical advertisements, the Supreme Court in March 2025 ordered all states and union territories to establish a grievance redressal mechanism, allowing consumers to lodge complaints under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act via toll-free numbers or email.

The order followed a January warning from the court, which threatened contempt proceedings if states failed to act against misleading ads. Yet, enforcement has lagged.

“States don’t take contempt proceedings seriously because they know they can get away with an apology,” said Alay Razvi, managing partner at Accord Juris. “In other instances, they’re under instructions not to comply with the order.”

Aslam Ahmed, a partner at Singhania & Co, said delays were rooted in bureaucratic inertia, limited infrastructure and weak enforcement. “There are no immediate consequences,” he noted.

India has struggled with the proliferation of unverified medical claims. In 2021, Patanjali Ayurved advertised ‘Coronil’ as a cure for Covid-19, and in 2023, the company’s campaigns repeatedly undermined allopathy despite Supreme Court warnings, resulting in contempt notices and the suspension of 14 product licenses by Uttarakhand authorities.

In 2022, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) fined GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare ₹10 lakh and restricted its ads for Sensodyne products, citing unsubstantiated claims of endorsements by foreign dentists and assertions that it was the “world’s No. 1 sensitivity toothpaste.”

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) identified healthcare as the most violative sector in 2023 and again in 2024. Manisha Kapoor, ASCI’s chief executive, said that in 2024-25, 91 percent of healthcare ads flagged (341 of 373) were taken up suo motu. Of those, 223 were reported to the Ministry of AYUSH for claiming prohibited cures.

A Persistent Problem

Despite the DMR Act’s prohibitions and the presence of ASCI, CCPA, and AYUSH guidelines, misleading medical ads continue to flourish, exploiting gaps in India’s regulatory ecosystem.

“These acts operate in silos and have different thresholds of evidence,” said Amrita S. Nair, an advocate at the Bombay High Court. “Products under the AYUSH umbrella often claim immunity from the stricter standards that apply to allopathic drugs. This has created a legal twilight zone where advertisers can dance around the law with impunity.”

Ahmed noted that many brands rely on vague, unsubstantiated claims such as “cure-all” or “scientifically proven.” Razvi warned that without amendments to the DMR Act, the elderly, chronically ill, and lower-income groups would remain vulnerable.

Social media has further complicated enforcement. In 2023, health influencer Revant Himatsingka, known as “FoodPharmer,” criticized Cadbury Bournvita for its sugar content, prompting Mondelez International to reduce sugar levels by 15 percent and remove the “health drink” label from its marketing. Yet, misleading claims continue to flood digital platforms.

“Instagram, YouTube and WhatsApp are flooded with wellness advice and endorsements by influencers, often without disclosures or evidence,” Razvi said. “Their perceived authenticity lowers skepticism.”

Advertisers often exploit the blurred lines between traditional remedies and medical claims. “The Patanjali fiasco — where grandiose claims were made about curing everything from asthma to Covid-19 — was not a one-off,” Nair said. “It was symptomatic of a market that thrives on the desperation of the sick, the vulnerable, and the health-obsessed middle class.”

Some brands have shifted under public scrutiny. Shashank Agarwal, an advocate at the Rajasthan High Court, cited Hindustan Unilever’s rebranding of Fair & Lovely to Glow & Lovely in 2020, following criticism that its ads promoted fairness as a condition for happiness.

The Digital Challenge

Digital platforms have emerged as the primary battleground for misleading health claims. ASCI reported that 85 percent of violative ads in 2023–2024 appeared on digital platforms, with Instagram alone accounting for more than half. That trend continued into 2024-25, Kapoor said, with 82 percent of healthcare violations on digital, compared with 10 percent in print and 8 percent on television.

“On digital platforms, everything is algorithmically pushed into feeds with no filters to stop the reach,” Razvi said.

Ahmed added that YouTube channels and WhatsApp forwards promoting herbal Covid “cures” reached millions in ways print media never could. Nair noted that brands often delegate ad creation to marketing agencies prioritizing virality over veracity, partnering with influencers without legal vetting.

“In contrast, print and television had higher compliance due to editorial and regulatory checks,” Razvi said.

Will the Court’s Order Drive Change?

The Supreme Court’s directive has the potential to empower consumers to hold advertisers accountable, but its effectiveness will depend on implementation.

“It democratizes the regulatory ecosystem by empowering the public to act as watchdogs,” Razvi said. “But unless action on complaints is swift and visible, it risks becoming another token bureaucratic initiative.”

Ahmed expressed optimism, saying the court’s order could encourage people-centric enforcement. Yet he warned that a rushed rollout could result in poorly structured grievance systems lacking trained staff and infrastructure, leading to uneven enforcement across states.

Agarwal argued that a centralized grievance mechanism implemented by the central government would have ensured faster and more uniform compliance.

What Needs to Change

Experts say enforcement must be paired with structural reform. Brands should scientifically verify medical claims, use clear disclaimers, and adhere strictly to ASCI and legal guidelines, Ahmed said.

Nair called for an independent regulatory body for digital media, a revamp of the DMR Act to cover digital and influencer marketing, and a public awareness campaign to help consumers identify quackery.

“Investing in regular audits, both legal and medical, and third-party reviews of advertising content can help brands avoid potential disaster,” said Siddharth Chandrashekar, an advocate at the Bombay High Court.

Agarwal argued for scaled penalties based on a company’s market standing to ensure meaningful deterrence, while Nair said platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Instagram should also be held accountable.

“They cannot continue to profit from lies while disclaiming all responsibility,” Nair said. “We need a centralized digital complaint portal, mandatory pre-screening for health-related ads, and personal liability for CEOs and brand ambassadors in extreme cases.”

Read More: Bitter truth behind food ads: Will stricter regulations finally hold brands accountable?