India’s digital boom has captured worldwide imagination, but a darker reality lurks beneath the surface of technological progress and connectivity. American Big Tech platforms—Google, Meta, and their counterparts—are systematically facilitating advertisements for unapproved drugs, dubious health remedies, and so-called miracle cures across India. These companies exploit regulatory gaps, ignore statutory prohibitions like the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and dodge accountability by hiding behind intermediary protections. The outcome is profoundly troubling: a damaging double standard that normalises health misinformation whilst eroding confidence in Indian governance and digital sovereignty.
Editorials and expert analyses reveal that these platforms operate with impunity in India whilst rigorously following regulations in Western markets. This regulatory asymmetry isn’t merely a compliance oversight—it represents a fundamental crisis of digital colonialism where global corporations respect American and European laws but treat Indian regulations as optional suggestions. The cost isn’t abstract; vulnerable citizens face daily exposure to unverified health claims that could damage their wellbeing or delay proper medical treatment.
Legal Violations Hidden in Plain Sight
The Drugs and Magic Remedies Act was enacted in 1954 after nearly three decades of mounting concerns about deceptive medical advertising practices. It explicitly prohibits advertisements for drugs claiming to cure or prevent 54 specified diseases, yet digital platforms violate these provisions routinely and systematically. Big Tech companies operating in India accept paid advertisements for miracle cures and unverified health products—practices they wouldn’t dare attempt in Western jurisdictions. Their algorithms deliberately target vulnerable users through social media feeds and search engines, monetising content that clearly violates established Indian law. Dinesh Thakur, a prominent public health advocate, observes the scale of violations: “Health-related claims like ‘diabetes reversal’, ‘anti-cancer herbal cure’, or ‘immunity-boosting elixirs’ are promoted despite legal bans.” These practices generate substantial profits for tech giants whilst directly threatening consumer safety and undermining legitimate healthcare providers across the country.
Meanwhile, regulatory authorities including the Drugs Controller General of India and the Ministry of Health lack robust digital enforcement mechanisms to combat these violations. Tech companies routinely claim “intermediary” status under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, arguing they merely facilitate user-generated content rather than publishing it themselves. However, this defence crumbles under scrutiny: paid advertisements are actively solicited, reviewed, approved, and monetised by these platforms, making them publishers with clear editorial responsibility. Past court judgements, including public interest litigations concerning the PNDT Act, have rejected such defences, yet enforcement remains frustratingly weak and penalties exceptionally rare.
Ethics Abandoned, Consumers Endangered
The unchecked proliferation of misleading drug advertisements represents more than legal violations—it fundamentally erodes medical ethics and consumer protection standards throughout India. Thakur articulates the broader impact: “Digital advertising by Big Tech undermines consumer safety by normalising unscientific remedies and testing India’s ability to uphold the law.” The contrast with American operations is stark and revealing: these same platforms rigorously obey stricter FDA guidelines in the United States, demonstrating their capacity for compliance when facing serious consequences. In India, however, lack of coordination between the DCGI, Ministry of Electronics and IT, and consumer protection bodies creates an enforcement vacuum that companies exploit ruthlessly.
Bureaucratic inertia compounds the problem, with legal proceedings dragging on for years whilst violations continue unabated—a nine-year public interest litigation over PNDT Act violations exemplifies this dysfunction. During such delays, millions of Indians encounter deceptive online health content daily, potentially making harmful decisions about their medical care based on fraudulent claims. This situation not only endangers public trust in governance institutions but perpetuates a troubling model of digital colonialism where global corporations demonstrate respect for Western legal frameworks whilst systematically neglecting those of developing nations, treating them as second-tier markets with second-tier rights.
Sovereignty Crisis Masked as Compliance Issue
This regulatory asymmetry transcends mere compliance failures—it reflects a fundamental crisis in India’s digital sovereignty and its ability to govern within its own borders. Big Tech companies deliberately exploit loopholes across the DMRA, IT Act, and Consumer Protection Rules, confident that outdated legislation hasn’t kept pace with algorithmic advertising models. Enforcement efforts are further hampered by the absence of a cross-sectoral regulator or comprehensive Digital Competition Law that could coordinate responses across fragmented agencies. Legal commentator Prashant Reddy, writing for The Hindu, captures the principle at stake: “Digital giants that comply with American law cannot flout Indian law in India—compliance cannot be a matter of geography, but of principle.”
Yet current reality contradicts this standard, with tech platforms continuing to profit in weaker legal environments whilst simultaneously lobbying against tighter oversight measures. India’s regulatory response has been consistently reactive rather than strategic or forward-looking, allowing companies to stay several steps ahead of enforcement efforts. The government’s approach treats each violation as an isolated incident rather than recognising the systemic pattern of contempt for Indian law. This policy blind spot enables continued exploitation, as platforms calculate that occasional small penalties cost less than comprehensive compliance would require.
Reclaiming Control: The Path to Accountability
Restoring order requires decisive, coordinated action across multiple fronts rather than piecemeal responses to individual violations or occasional enforcement gestures. The pathway forward must include criminal prosecution of platform managers for DMRA violations, establishing genuine consequences that executives cannot simply dismiss as business expenses. India needs a dedicated Digital Health Advertising Authority with specific expertise and enforcement powers to monitor and penalise violations systematically and swiftly. Section 79 of the IT Act requires amendment to hold platforms liable for algorithmic amplification of unlawful content, eliminating their ability to profit from violations whilst claiming passive intermediary status. National campaigns promoting consumer digital literacy can help citizens recognise fraudulent health claims before making potentially dangerous decisions about their medical care.
Thakur frames the urgency clearly: “India must treat Big Tech’s violations as a public health crisis, not a mere compliance issue.” Coordinated action between the Reserve Bank of India, MeitY, and the Ministry of Health is essential for monitoring health-related fintech and advertising technology. Only by combining vigorous legal enforcement, ethical obligations, and technological oversight can India reclaim its fundamental ability to protect citizens in the digital age. The country must enforce public health safeguards as rigorously as any other jurisdiction, rejecting the notion that developing nations deserve lesser protection. Until American tech giants face consequences matching those they’d encounter for similar violations in Western markets, India’s digital sovereignty remains compromised, and its citizens remain vulnerable to exploitation disguised as innovation.