Advertising is no longer just a marketing tool—it has become a powerful force shaping consumer choices, societal values, and corporate reputations. While advertisements are designed to persuade, the line between persuasion and deception is increasingly being blurred. The proliferation of misleading advertisements, especially across digital platforms, has emerged as a pressing legal and ethical concern in India.

A notable example is the 2020 controversy surrounding Patanjali's 'Coronil', which was marketed as a COVID-19 cure without proper regulatory approval. Similarly, the Maggi noodles controversy exposed not only food safety issues but also the accountability of celebrity endorsers who had promoted the product. These incidents reflect a broader trend—where companies exploit consumer trust through exaggerated or unverified claims, often with the backing of public figures.

Such advertisements can cause real harm: from endangering health through false medical claims, to misleading students and parents in the education sector, or influencing investment decisions with half-truths in financial services. Yet, until recently, legal accountability for such practices remained limited or poorly enforced.

This article aims to explore how the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the creation of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) represent a turning point in India's approach to deceptive advertising. It further evaluates how this legal framework addresses modern advertising formats, the liabilities of endorsers, and the challenges that remain in ensuring corporate accountability.

Legal Framework
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 introduced a transformative legal framework to regulate misleading advertisements and enhance corporate accountability. The Act clearly defines the scope of deceptive marketing, empowers regulatory bodies, and establishes liability for both manufacturers and endorsers.

Under Section 2(28) of the Act, a misleading advertisement is one which "falsely describes a product or service or gives a false guarantee," or misleads consumers regarding the nature, quantity, quality, or other characteristics of the product or service. This broad definition encompasses both overt misrepresentation and subtle omissions.

A significant institutional innovation under the Act is the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).

Empowered under Section 21, the CCPA can:

• Order the discontinuation or modification of misleading advertisements;
• Impose penalties up to ₹10 lakh on manufacturers, with up to ₹50 lakh for repeat offences;
• Ban endorsers from promoting any product or service for a period ranging from one to three years.

Further, Section 89 introduces penal consequences for violations, including imprisonment up to two years and fines for manufacturers or service providers responsible for misleading advertisements. The Act has extended liability to celebrities, influencers, and endorsers, recognising their role in shaping consumer perception. In this context, the CCPA Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements (2022) require endorsers to exercise "due diligence" before associating with a product or service. Ignorance or reliance on manufacturer claims is no longer a sufficient defence. In parallel, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), a self-regulatory body, mandates that advertisements must be:

• Truthful;
• Non-comparative (unless substantiated);
• Must not mislead by implication or omission.

ASCI plays an important advisory role, and its Code of Self-Regulation is increasingly used by regulators and courts in assessing the fairness of advertisements.

Sectoral Impact and Case Studies

The regulatory and ethical issues related to misleading advertisements are most visible in sectors that directly impact consumer health, education, and financial well-being. Several landmark cases illustrate how corporate messaging can cross legal boundaries:

• Patanjali's Coronil (2020): Marketed as a COVID-19 cure without clearance from the Ministry of AYUSH, the product drew widespread criticism and regulatory intervention. The CCPA and other authorities took action, highlighting the public health risks of unsubstantiated medical claims.
• Horlicks v. Complan: In a comparative advertisement, Complan claimed it was more effective in promoting children's growth than Horlicks. The Delhi High Court clarified that puffery must not be disguised as scientific fact, and comparative ads must not mislead or disparage competitors.
• Maggi Noodles Controversy (2015): Following reports of excessive lead content, Nestlé faced temporary bans and investigations. Celebrities like Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit, and Preity Zinta, who had endorsed the product, received legal notices. The controversy raised urgent questions on endorser liability and public trust.

These examples reflect the sector-specific vulnerability of consumers:

• In the healthcare sector, misleading claims may delay medical treatment;
• In education, inflated success rates can influence career choices;
• In financial services, false guarantees of returns may cause irreversible losses.

Each of these industries requires tailored regulatory attention to ensure that advertisements reflect fact, not fiction.

Digital Advertising and Influencers

The evolution of advertising has shifted dramatically from traditional media to digital-first ecosystems. Platforms like Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and emerging video apps now dominate consumer engagement. Here, influencer marketing has emerged as a powerful tool, often operating outside conventional legal scrutiny. Influencers, who may not be trained marketers, promote products via reels, stories, and livestreams—many of which lack clear disclosure. The blurring of personal opinion with sponsored content creates an environment where consumers are unable to distinguish genuine recommendations from paid promotions. To address this, the ASCI issued the Influencer Advertising Guidelines (2021). These require:

• Clear disclosures using tags like #Ad, #Sponsored, or #PaidPartnership;
• Labels that are prominent, legible, and not hidden in hashtags or captions;
• Uniform compliance across platforms (video, image, audio).

However, enforcement remains weak, especially among micro-influencers and regional content creators. Many endorsements still go undisclosed, and the informal nature of digital ads allows brands to evade liability by shifting responsibility to creators.

Additionally, most social media platforms claim intermediary status under the Information Technology Act, 2000, shielding them from liability for misleading content unless a specific takedown order is issued.
In the absence of stronger platform-level regulation, misleading digital advertisements remain a fast-growing and under-policed space.

Challenges in Enforcement

Despite the legislative and regulatory advancements introduced through the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, several structural and procedural barriers continue to hinder the effective regulation of misleading advertisements in India.

• Fragmented Legal Framework: There is currently no standalone advertising statute in India. Regulatory authority is spread across multiple sectoral bodies (such as FSSAI, IRDAI, SEBI, and UGC), leading to overlapping mandates and enforcement gaps. The absence of a comprehensive advertising code results in inconsistent standards and fragmented redressal mechanisms.
• Inadequate Penalties and Delays: The penalties prescribed under the CPA, 2019—although progressive—may not serve as effective deterrents for large corporations. Further, consumer forums often suffer from procedural delays, resource constraints, and a lack of digital infrastructure for swift resolution.
• Platform Immunity and Digital Loopholes: Digital platforms continue to operate under the safe harbour protection of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which classifies them as intermediaries. This limits their responsibility for hosting misleading content unless they receive explicit takedown instructions from authorities, thereby restricting proactive enforcement.
• Low Consumer Awareness: Many consumers remain unaware of their rights, especially in rural and semi-urban areas. The processes for filing complaints, identifying misleading claims, or tracking endorsements remain inaccessible to large segments of the population.
   

Legal Reforms

To build a stronger, consumer-centric advertising environment, the following legal reforms are recommended:

• Unified Advertising Legislation: There is an urgent need for a consolidated advertising law that uniformly governs all forms of advertising—print, digital, broadcast, and outdoor. Such a law should clearly define misleading content, assign liability across the advertising chain, and mandate pre-approval for high-risk sectors.
• Mandatory Influencer Registration: Influencers crossing a prescribed engagement or revenue threshold should be required to register with a regulatory body, disclose brand partnerships transparently, and submit periodic compliance declarations. This would allow regulators to track endorsements and hold individuals accountable.
• Pre-Clearance of High-Risk Advertisements: Products in healthcare, financial services, and education should undergo mandatory pre-vetting by relevant regulators or panels to ensure accuracy and safety before public release.
• Escalating Penalties for Repeat Offenders: Repeat violations should attract escalating fines, public naming of defaulting entities, and in severe cases, criminal prosecution under IPC provisions for fraud and misrepresentation.
• AI-Enabled Digital Surveillance: Regulators should develop AI-driven monitoring tools capable of flagging suspicious advertisements across social media, OTT platforms, and digital news outlets. This would allow for real-time detection and swifter action.

Conclusion
Misleading advertisements are not merely marketing oversights—they are deliberate distortions that endanger public trust, consumer welfare, and market integrity. As companies continue to leverage emotional appeal and influencer reach, the law must evolve to ensure greater transparency, truthfulness, and accountability in advertising.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, along with the CCPA and ASCI Guidelines, marks a significant shift towards protecting consumers. However, enforcement remains inconsistent and under-equipped to handle the complexities of digital media ecosystems.

For India to emerge as a global model in ethical advertising regulation, it must adopt a multi-pronged approach—strengthening laws, empowering enforcement bodies, increasing penalties, and educating the public. Legal awareness, corporate responsibility, and regulatory vigilance together can build a marketplace where advertising serves its true purpose: informing, not deceiving.