Controlling the hard sell

New guidelines toughen advertising standards usefully

The new guidelines toughening the standards of information in advertisements, especially those aimed at children, in all major media platforms have been long overdue. Under the new rules, penalties for misleading advertisements have been linked to the definition of such infractions and the punitive measures provided under Section 2 (28) of the Consumer Protection Act. For manufacturers, advertisers, and endorsers, the penalties are ~10 lakh for the first offence and ~50 lakh for a second infringement. The Central Consumer Protection Authority can also prohibit an endorser of a misleading advertisement for up to one year, and three years for a repeat offence. Two other critical points about the new guidelines are that they clearly define “bait” and “free claims” advertising and strictly set limits to advertising for children, including those with celebrity endorsements. The guidelines also require a disclaimer to be published in the same language as the claim made in the advertisement and the font used must be the same as that used in the claim.

These guidelines were long overdue and will undoubtedly introduce a greater measure of caution among manufacturers and endorsers of products, given that the advertising industry’s well-meaning attempts at self-regulation have proven inadequate so far. The proliferation of advertising for online gaming sites and mutual fund products has magnified the problem of misleading advertising. A requirement slowing the pace at which disclaimers are read on TV ads would also be useful. Tightening standards of advertising for children, including disallowing celebrity advertising in some cases, are welcome, given that children are key purchase influencers in middle-class Indian households. Indeed, the authority may have done better had it gone one courageous step further and banned the advertising of junk food and drink, just as it has done for fairness creams, alcohol, cigarettes, and chewing tobacco. The volume of junk food advertising — from deep-fried snacks and fast food to sugar-laden aerated water targeted at children and teenagers — has played a key role in the exponential rise of childhood obesity and diabetes among middle-class Indians. As with alcohol, for which surrogate advertising has sensibly been banned as well, point-of-purchase publicity for junk food should be considered sufficient publicity.

The key question, however, is how the government will enforce these guidelines. The Central Consumer Protection Authority, which was formed in 2020, is responsible for regulating false and misleading advertisements and punishing offenders, the functions that the Advertising Standards Council of India used to perform. The authority has an investigation wing, headed by a director general, and it relies not only on individual consumer complaints but also reports from district authorities. This considerably widens the catchment area for tracking misleading advertising. Tracking advertising in India’s more than 10,000 print publications and 850-plus TV channels in multiple languages is challenging enough. But the principal problem today is the proliferation of online advertising, not all of it originating in India. This will require a gargantuan organisation to track effectively. It would also make sense for the Authority to work closely with other similar authorities to regulate claims on health and personal product packaging and include health warnings as is done on tobacco products. In that sense, the new guidelines could be considered a good starting point.