SC states celebrities,
influencers equally accountable for misleading ads
Social
media influencers and celebrities now find themselves in the thick of the
Supreme Court's lens as the court on Tuesday said that they'll share equal
responsibility for endorsing products or services in misleading advertisements.
The
top court also told the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public
Distribution to file a fresh affidavit on action taken by Central Consumer
Protection Authority (CCPA) against false or misleading ads, particularly in
the food and health sector. FSSAI has also been ordered to file a similar
affidavit.
We
are of the opinion that the advertisers or the advertising agencies or
endorsers are equally responsible for issuing false and misleading
advertisements. Endorsements by public figures, influencers, celebrities etc go
a long way in promoting a product and it is imperative for them to act with
responsibility when endorsing any product in the course of advertisements,
said the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, while taking
note of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) guidelines which call
for influencers to be transparent about paid endorsements.
The
court said celebrities and influencers should not abuse the trust placed in
them by the public'.
They
have to take responsibility for advertisements as contemplated in guideline 8
(ads that target or use children) and guideline 12 (duties of manufacturers,
service providers and ad agency) to ensure that the trust of the consumer is
not abused or exploited due to sheer lack of knowledge or experience. Guideline
13 requires due responsibility to be taken for advertisements and requires a
person who endorses a product to have adequate information or experience with
the specific food product to be endorsed, and it must be ensured that it is not
deceptive, the top court said.
The
court said broadcasters need to file the self-declaration on the Broadcast Seva
portal run by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
It
further ordered the Central government to establish a new portal for filing
such self-declaration forms for advertisements on print media. This portal is
to be set up within four weeks, the court said. The next hearing in the matter
is on May 14.
What
were you doing?
The
Supreme Court also came down on the Indian Medical Association (IMA) for
comments made by its president RV Asokan during an interview.
You
say (the) other side (Patanjali Ayurved) is misleading, running your medicine
down, but what were you doing? the top court asked IMA.
Asokan
had said SC's observations during Patanjali's misleading advertisements case
against allopathy practitioners was unfortunate and very vague and general
statement which has demoralised the doctors . The Supreme Court had said before
this interview that IMA needs to put its house in order'.
The
court said it expected the IMA to maintain decorum, especially given the
sensitivity of the ongoing legal proceedings. See the manner in which the
matter was proceeding. The views of the court equally apply to you, the bench
said.
Acharya
Balkrishna, the managing director of Patanjali Ayurved, lodged a complaint
against Asokan's interview, alleging interference with the court's proceedings
and seeking action against the IMA president.
Meanwhile,
Patanjali was directed to take down misleading advertisements that are running
online. It also said to remove products, which were prohibited, from stores.
Centre
withdraws letter
The
Centre told the Supreme Court that it will forthwith withdraw the letter sent
by Ministry of Ayush to all State and UT Licensing Authorities asking them not
to take any action against ads pertaining to Ayurvedic and Ayush products under
Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945.
This
comes after the Supreme Court chided the government for issuing a letter to State
and UT licensing authorities asking them not to take action against ads related
to Ayurvedic and Ayush products under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules,
1945.
The
bench referred to the letter of August 29, 2023 issued by the Ministry of Ayush
to all State/ UT Licensing Authorities and Drug Controllers of AYUSH regarding
omission of Rule 170 (and related provisions) of the 1945 Rules.
Rule
170 prohibits advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs without
licensing authorities' approval.
How
can you say that you do not implement a law till it is a good law? And that too
the government will say that! It is glaring. How do we shut our eyes that till
date it was neither withdrawn nor taken to its logical conclusion. Is it
permissible under the constitution as it holds today, the Bench said on
Tuesday.
The
court is hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against
Patanjali's advertisements attacking allopathy and making claims about curing
certain diseases.
www.business-standard.com
dt. 08.05.2024