Sri Lanka’s digital ecosystem lacks a comprehensive legal framework to control misleading or distressing advertisements on social media platforms. Recently, Minister of Mass Media Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa called for new legislation that would fill this void and enable authorities to better manage harmful online promotions that span sectors beyond those currently covered by existing law.
Today’s social platforms host a dizzying array of paid content, influencer endorsements, sponsored posts, and native advertisements that blur the line between persuasive messaging and factual communication. When these promotions make exaggerated claims or misrepresent products and services, they can deceive consumers, erode trust, and inflict real economic and emotional harm. Yet Sri Lanka’s existing legal architecture does not comprehensively govern these practices across all sectors.
Sri Lanka already has a digital content law that touches on related issues, but its focus and design are different. The Online Safety Act No.9 of 2024 establishes a framework to counter certain prohibited online statements and harmful content and sets up a commission to oversee such matters. It also empowers regulators to issue directives to remove specified content, coordinate with service providers, and seek to disable harmful material.
However, the act was largely conceived as a tool for countering cybercrime, impersonation, harassment, and other threats to online safety and public order, rather than as a framework for advertising standards. As such, while it addresses ‘harmful content,’ it does not explicitly regulate marketing practices across the board.
Moreover, the way that the Online Safety Act has been framed and enforced has generated controversy. Rights groups and journalists have warned that vaguely defined offences and enforcement powers can chill speech and be misused against dissent or legitimate expression.
Amnesty International described the new law as having provisions that “do not meet international human rights standards” and that could restrict freedom of expression and privacy online. Civil society voices have called for substantial revision of the law to align it with democratic norms. In this context, any new legislation targeting oppressive or misleading online advertising must be carefully calibrated so that it protects consumers without eroding fundamental freedoms.
The need for sector-specific rules for advertising is not controversial in principle. Even before social media dominated the sector, Sri Lanka’s advertising laws sought to ensure that marketing communications were truthful, not misleading, and substantiated by evidence where necessary. Regulations aim to maintain a fair playing field for advertisers and safeguard consumer interests, whether in commerce, retail, or consumer services. But the rise of social media has complicated enforcement because digital promotions circulate globally, are highly targeted, and often evade the scrutiny that traditional media and statutory codes impose.
At stake are the public’s confidence and well-being. Misleading advertisements for wellness products, financial schemes, cosmetic therapies, or other services can prompt consumers to spend money they cannot afford, pursue ineffective or harmful treatments, or fall prey to scams that exploit misinformation.
Yet crafting such legislation will require precision and foresight. Lawmakers must resist the temptation to draft broad, vague prohibitions that could suppress legitimate speech or give regulators sweeping powers without safeguards. A new law aimed at promotions and advertisements must clearly distinguish between harmful commercial practices and protected expression, defining offences and enforcement mechanisms in ways that respect constitutional guarantees of speech and information while protecting consumers.
A thoughtful regulatory framework could impose transparency requirements, obliging influencers and advertisers to disclose paid content clearly and plainly. It could require substantiation of claims, particularly where health or financial outcomes are concerned, and it could establish a specialised body with both the expertise and procedural safeguards needed to adjudicate complaints fairly.
Sri Lanka’s economy and society benefit enormously from digital platforms that connect consumers and producers, support entrepreneurs, and enable global commerce. But those benefits must not come at the expense of public trust or consumer protection.