Celebrities equally liable if they endorse misleading ads, says SC
Additional solicitor general KM Nataraj presented separate action taken reports by ministries of consumer affairs, health, information and broadcasting, and Ayush
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said celebrities and influencers are equally liable for action as those who advertise a product or service in a misleading manner, and ordered all advertisers to give undertakings before issuing commercials or ads in print that theirs are not misleading advertisements.
The court made the remarks while hearing a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) challenging misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved endorsed by Yoga exponent and entrepreneur Ramdev.
“It is imperative for celebrities and public figures to act responsibly while endorsing a consumer product as advertisers and endorsers are equally responsible for issuing misleading advertisements,” said the bench, comprising justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
“We are of the opinion that advertisers, advertising agencies and endorsers are equally responsible for issuing false and misleading advertisements,” the judges said, adding that “endorsements by celebrities, influencers and public figures go a long way in promoting products and it is imperative for them to act with responsibility while endorsing any product in the course of advertisement and taking responsibility for the same…,” the bench observed.
“Rules are meant to serve the consumers and to ensure they are made aware of products purchased in market. We are aware that the central government ministries need to set out a procedure that will encourage consumers to lodge a complaint,” the order said.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj, who was asked by the court on April 23 to explain what steps had been taken to curb misleading advertisements, presented separate action-taken reports by ministries of consumer affairs, health, information & broadcasting and Ayush to show that the Centre was vigilant towards curbing such misleading commercials.
Regarding ads shown on television, he pointed out that TV networks have their self-regulatory bodies. Under the recent amendments to Cable TV regulations, ASG added that besides self-regulation, there is an oversight committee for monitoring content and complaints and an inter-department committee above it.
“It is said that the consumer is the king. There has to be some answerability from some agency,” the bench said. “We are looking at the issue from the point of view of consumers. If there is a system in place, that should work.”
The court observed that approaching state consumer commissions is the only remedy available to the public and directed all advertisers in print and electronic media to give self-declaration to the concerned broadcaster, printer, or publisher for their records.
Additional solicitor general KM Nataraj presented separate action taken reports by ministries of consumer affairs, health, information and broadcasting, and Ayush to show that the Centre is vigilant towards curbing misleading commercials.
The court took objection to a letter written by the Ayush ministry on August 29, 2023, to all states and Union territories putting on hold Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, which prohibited advertisement of Ayush drugs for diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any disease, disorder or syndrome. Nataraj agreed to withdraw the letter.
The bench noted that the central consumer protection authority (CCPA) was constituted in June 2022 to receive complaints from consumers on misleading advertisements. The court called for a comprehensive status report on action taken on consumer complaints regarding food and health products.
The court also pulled up the Uttarakhand government for failing to enforce its April 15 order suspending production of 14 Patanjali products with immediate effect. “You have to ask them to withdraw. Not that every time we are prodding you, that you will act. We are running out of patience,” the bench said.
The matter was posted for May 14, and the court agreed to take up an application by Patanjali MD Balkrishna against the IMA president for an objectionable interview given to media on April 29 on the pending case.
Read more news like this on HindustanTimes.com