Supreme Administrative Court judgment, Red Case No. A 1159/2568, concerning legal issues related to the advertising of traditional medicines.

Abstract

Drug advertising is an activity to which the law attaches significant importance, as it may influence consumers’ understanding and decisions regarding the use of medicines. The Drug Act B.E. 2510 (1967) therefore establishes regulatory measures to control drug advertising in order to prevent exaggerated claims or misleading representations of medicinal properties. Traditional medicines, in particular, are subject to regulatory oversight in the same manner as other categories of drugs.

This article aims to examine the legal issues concerning the advertising of traditional medicines through internet media by analyzing the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in Case No. A 1159/2568, between a private individual as the plaintiff and a government authority as the defendant. The plaintiff was a licensed manufacturer of traditional medicines and had published information regarding the properties of the medicines through a website and social media platforms. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an order to suspend the advertisement on the grounds that the advertising had not been approved and that the claims regarding the medicinal properties exceeded those registered in the official drug formulation registry.

The plaintiff argued that the dissemination of such information should not be considered “advertising,” and that advertising conducted through the internet should not fall within the scope of Section 88 bis of the Drug Act B.E. 2510 (1967). Nevertheless, the Supreme Administrative Court held that although the law does not explicitly define the term “advertisement,” it may be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning as the public dissemination of information for commercial purposes. Furthermore, advertising through the internet constitutes a form of communication that integrates multiple types of media and is therefore subject to the relevant legal provisions.

The Court further held that advertising which claims medicinal properties beyond those approved in the registered drug formulation constitutes false or exaggerated advertising, in violation of Section 88 of the Drug Act B.E. 2510 (1967). Accordingly, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Administrative Court of First Instance, ruling that the order issued by the Food and Drug Administration was lawful. The decision reflects the legal objective of protecting consumer safety and ensuring the proper and responsible use of medicines.