Context:
• Big Tech platforms have been accused of violating Indian laws regulating drug advertisements, particularly the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act (DMRA), 1954, by promoting misleading medical claims.
• The issue raises questions on accountability, digital governance, and public health safety amid increasing online advertisement penetration.
Key Highlights:
- Violation of DMRA, 1954:
- The Act prohibits advertisements claiming therapeutic efficacy for 54 medical conditions irrespective of product approval.
- Big Tech platforms continue to host and promote misleading ads for ayurvedic and homeopathic products that contravene this Act.
- Regulatory Evasion by Big Tech:
- These platforms claim “intermediary status” under Indian law to avoid liability, asserting they are not “publishers.”
- Despite active ad management, Big Tech avoids accountability by citing Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides conditional immunity to intermediaries.
- Historical Precedent – PNDT Act Violations:
- A PIL filed in 2008 cited violations of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PNDT) by the same platforms.
- Big Tech displayed evasive behavior even then, reflecting a pattern of disregard for Indian regulatory frameworks.
- Double Standards:
- These corporations refrain from such ads in the United States, where strict liability and criminal penalties apply.
- The article links this behavior to a broader culture of impunity and disregard for Indian consumers, drawing parallels to historical cases like Union Carbide.
- Proposed Legal and Administrative Remedies:
- Mandate that policy and content heads of Big Tech operating in India be Indian citizens residing in India.
- Introduce criminal prosecution for management responsible for violating Indian laws.
- Revoke intermediary immunity if platforms fail to comply with Indian advertising and health laws.
Relevant Mains Points:
• Ethical and Governance Concerns:
- Conflict between digital freedom and public safety regulation.
- Lack of transparent algorithmic accountability in ad publishing.
- Legal and Policy Challenges:
- Weak enforcement mechanisms in India vs. stronger oversight in the U.S. and EU.
- Need for clearer definitions distinguishing “intermediary” vs. “publisher.”
- Public Health Impact:
- Misleading medical claims undermine scientific temper (Article 51A(h)) and endanger lives.
- Undermines Ayush credibility and erodes public trust in traditional systems.
- Way Forward:
- Strengthen coordination between MoHFW, MeitY, and Consumer Affairs Ministry.
- Impose mandatory algorithmic audits and require ad-verification certificates.
- Introduce Digital Accountability Bill ensuring real-time removal of harmful content.