1 point by slswlsek 2 months ago | flag | hide | 0 comments
This report examines the pervasive issue of unscientific and misleading health advertisements on YouTube, specifically addressing concerns raised regarding their prevalence in South Korea within a global context. It provides a comprehensive analysis of YouTube's internal policies, the regulatory frameworks in South Korea, and compares these with approaches adopted in other key countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.
The analysis reveals that misleading health advertising is a widespread global challenge, not an issue unique to South Korea. This global nature is driven by the immense scale of digital content, the economic incentives inherent in online advertising, and the constantly evolving tactics of misinformation. While South Korea possesses a robust domestic regulatory framework, including strict laws governing health functional foods and a proactive stance against undisclosed "backdoor advertising," enforcement against digital platforms and influencer marketing remains a complex endeavor. This complexity mirrors difficulties encountered worldwide, where regulators grapple with the rapid pace of digital innovation and the cross-border nature of online content.
Effective strategies observed globally emphasize rigorous scientific substantiation for health claims, transparent disclosure of commercial relationships, robust inter-agency cooperation, and targeted protections for vulnerable populations. The report highlights that the perceived gap between stringent policies and their real-world impact often stems from the sheer volume of content and the agility of deceptive practices. Recommendations focus on strengthening collaborative efforts between platforms and national regulators, enhancing AI-driven content moderation, promoting digital literacy among consumers, and pursuing greater harmonization of international advertising standards. These measures are crucial for fostering a safer and more trustworthy digital advertising environment.
The proliferation of unscientific and potentially fraudulent health-related advertisements on digital platforms, particularly YouTube, has become a significant source of public concern. The user's query specifically highlights this issue in South Korea, citing examples such as unproven weight loss supplements and melatonin for sleep induction, and questions whether this situation is unique to the nation or reflects a broader global challenge. This concern underscores a critical public health and consumer protection dilemma, demanding a thorough examination of how digital advertising, especially for health claims, is regulated and enforced worldwide.
This report undertakes a comprehensive analysis to address these critical questions. It aims to dissect the global management practices of YouTube advertising, with a particular emphasis on health-related claims. A detailed comparison of South Korea's regulatory environment and enforcement actions against those of other prominent countries will be conducted. The report will identify common challenges faced by regulators globally and delineate successful regulatory methods, processes, and their outcomes, offering potential benchmarks for improved oversight. The ultimate objective is to provide an evidence-based understanding of the current landscape of health advertising on YouTube and propose pathways for more effective regulation.
The importance of regulating health misinformation cannot be overstated. The widespread dissemination of unsubstantiated health claims on digital platforms poses profound risks to public health, erodes consumer trust, and distorts fair market practices. Individuals exposed to misleading information may make ill-informed health decisions, potentially delaying or avoiding effective medical treatments, and may waste financial resources on products that are ineffective or, in some cases, even harmful.1 The dynamic and rapidly evolving nature of online content and advertising necessitates a robust, adaptive, and internationally coordinated regulatory response to safeguard public well-being.
YouTube operates under a comprehensive policy framework designed to govern all content uploaded to its platform and to ensure brand safety for advertisers. This framework consists of two primary pillars: the Community Guidelines, which apply to all content, and the Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines, specifically tailored for videos that are monetized or carry advertisements.3 These guidelines are meticulously crafted to strike a balance between enabling creator expression and protecting users and advertisers from harmful or inappropriate content.
General prohibitions within these guidelines are broad, encompassing content that is deemed harmful or unreliable. This includes, but is not limited to, depictions of dangerous acts, promotion of recreational drugs, and, critically, the dissemination of medical and scientific misinformation.4 The platform's commitment to these policies is evident in its automated detection systems, augmented by human reporting, which work to identify and remove violative content, often before it gains significant viewership.3 Exceptions to these prohibitions are rare and typically apply only when content serves a clear educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic (EDSA) purpose.3
A significant observation regarding YouTube's approach is the nuanced application of its dual policy framework. The user's query specifically references "YouTube ads" (유튜브 광고). While Google Ads policies directly govern paid advertisements that appear on YouTube 5, YouTube's broader Community Guidelines also extend to
all content, including organic videos created by individuals or influencers that might promote products or services. This means that a misleading health claim could originate from a paid advertisement, which falls under Google Ads policies, or from an organic video produced by a content creator. If an organic video containing misleading health claims is monetized, it can also violate YouTube's Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines, leading to its demonetization.3 This layered approach signifies that enforcement is not solely focused on explicit "ads" but also on content that functions as a promotion, even if not directly paid for through Google's advertising system. This creates a complex enforcement landscape, as the lines between organic content and promotional material can often blur, requiring continuous vigilance across different policy sets to ensure compliance.
YouTube maintains explicit and stringent policies concerning health-related claims, particularly those involving medical misinformation. The platform strictly prohibits content that poses a "serious risk of egregious harm by spreading medical misinformation that contradicts local health authority (LHA) guidance".8 This broad prohibition covers various forms of misinformation, including false information regarding the prevention or transmission of specific health conditions, as well as unsubstantiated claims about the safety, efficacy, or ingredients of approved vaccines and treatments.
Specific examples of prohibited harmful substances and treatments include dangerous compounds like Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), Black Salve, Turpentine, and unproven cancer treatments such as Caesium chloride, Hoxsey therapy, or coffee enemas.8 Content that actively discourages individuals from seeking approved medical treatments or promotes unverified alternative methods in their place is also explicitly disallowed.8
A notable development in YouTube's policy landscape involves melatonin. As of June 2025, Google, and consequently YouTube's advertising platform, lifted the global prohibition on promoting melatonin products. Previously, such advertising was restricted outside of the United States and Canada.9 This significant policy adjustment indicates a global re-evaluation of how melatonin is perceived in advertising contexts, potentially reflecting evolving scientific consensus, regulatory stances, or increasing market acceptance of the substance.
The shift in melatonin policy demonstrates that the definitions of what constitutes "prohibited" or "safe to advertise" are not static. These definitions evolve over time, influenced by shifts in scientific understanding, changes in regulatory frameworks, and, at times, market dynamics. This directly relates to the user's concern about "unscientific, baseless" (말도 안되는 과학적인 근거도 없는) claims. If a substance like melatonin, once subject to significant restrictions, becomes globally permissible for advertising, it highlights the fluid boundary of what is considered "unscientific" in a regulatory context, especially when scientific understanding or public perception undergoes a transformation. This fluidity means that platforms and regulatory bodies must constantly reassess and update their policies, which can sometimes lead to perceived inconsistencies or a lag in addressing newly emerging forms of misleading claims. It also suggests that the categorization of "unscientific" is not always a clear-cut, immutable standard, but rather one subject to ongoing re-evaluation and adaptation.
For all health-related content, Google Ads policies generally mandate that advertisements must be truthful, non-misleading, and supported by adequate substantiation for any objective product claims.5 For healthcare products, this often translates to a requirement for competent and reliable scientific evidence.10 Claims that are inaccurate, unreliable, or entice users with improbable results, even if theoretically possible, are explicitly disallowed.5
YouTube and Google Ads employ a multi-layered review process to ensure compliance with their extensive advertising policies. This process integrates both automated detection systems and human review to scrutinize ad content, including headlines, descriptions, keywords, destinations, images, and videos.3 While most advertisements are reviewed within one business day, more complex cases may require a longer assessment period.12
Upon review, if an advertisement is found to violate a policy, its status is changed to "Disapproved," effectively preventing it from being shown anywhere on the platform.12 For severe violations, termed "egregious violations," such as the promotion of unauthorized pharmacies or engaging in coordinated deceptive practices, Google Ads accounts can be suspended immediately without prior warning. In such cases, the advertiser may be permanently banned from advertising with Google Ads.5 Advertisers have the option to appeal a disapproval if they believe an error occurred or if they have rectified the violation.5
For content creators, violations of YouTube's Community Guidelines can lead to a tiered system of penalties. A first-time violation typically results in a warning, which can expire after 90 days if the creator completes a policy training program.15 However, repeated violations of the same policy within that 90-day window, or violations of different policies, can lead to strikes. Accumulating three strikes within a 90-day period can result in the termination of the channel.15 Furthermore, monetized videos that violate the Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines can be demonetized, and creators who repeatedly offend may face suspension from the YouTube Partner Program (YPP), impacting their ability to earn revenue from their content.3
Despite these robust mechanisms, platform-level enforcement faces several inherent challenges:
South Korea has established a multi-faceted regulatory framework to oversee online advertising, particularly concerning health-related products and services. This framework involves several key governmental bodies, each with distinct but complementary responsibilities.
The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) stands as the primary authority for health functional foods (HFF), operating under the stringent Health Functional Food Act.20 This act imposes stricter regulations than those found in some other countries, notably the United States, where dietary supplements are regulated more broadly as food.20 Under Korean law, HFFs must demonstrate scientifically validated health benefits and obtain explicit MFDS approval prior to being marketed.20 Critically, any misleading claims, especially those suggesting disease prevention, treatment, or cure, are strictly forbidden. Non-compliance can lead to significant regulatory measures, including penalties or product recalls.21
The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) plays a crucial role in regulating broader advertising practices to prevent deceptive promotions. Under general consumer protection laws, the KFTC prohibits exaggerated claims and the use of unverified testimonials.22 The KFTC also specifically bans high-risk financial advertising practices, such as promoting investment opportunities as guaranteed income or using unverified success stories, and has the authority to impose fines, ad restrictions, and even business shutdowns for violations.23
Complementing these bodies is the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC). Modeled after the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, the KCSC monitors digital platforms, including YouTube, to ensure compliance with truth-in-advertising laws and to foster sound communications ethics across online content.23
Furthermore, South Korea's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) is a stringent data privacy law that sets strict regulations on the collection and use of customer data for advertising purposes. It mandates explicit user consent for processing personal or financial information, impacting how advertisers can target consumers.23
South Korea has demonstrated a willingness to take decisive enforcement actions against misleading online advertising. A significant precedent was set during the "Backdoor Advertising" Controversy in 2020. This scandal exposed a widespread practice among Korean YouTubers and internet celebrities who promoted products without disclosing their paid partnerships with suppliers.26 The controversy led to public apologies from prominent YouTubers and prompted the official involvement of the South Korean Fair Trade Commission (FTC). As a direct result, strict regulations were implemented across social media platforms, including YouTube, mandating clear disclosure of advertising and paid sponsorships and prohibiting ambiguous phrases like "experience group".26 Violations of these regulations were met with significant legal and financial penalties.
Beyond this broad regulatory intervention, specific enforcement actions have been taken against individuals. For instance, YouTubers have been fined for false advertising of diet products. A notable case involved food content YouTuber Jung Man-su (known as Banzz), who was fined 5 million won (approximately $4,100) for misleading claims about the weight-loss effects of his products.27 This case highlighted the legal consequences for individuals making unsubstantiated health claims. Additionally, other Korean celebrities have initiated legal actions against malicious online comments and defamation, including those related to advertisements for diet products, indicating a growing trend of holding individuals accountable for online content.28
South Korea's approach to regulating online health advertising exhibits several strengths. The nation possesses a robust and comprehensive legal framework, with multiple dedicated agencies—MFDS, KFTC, and KCSC—working to ensure consumer protection and truth in advertising, particularly for health products.20 The specific regulations under the Health Functional Food Act are notably stricter than those in some other countries, requiring scientific validation for health claims before marketing approval.20 The decisive response to the "backdoor advertising" controversy in 2020 further demonstrates a governmental willingness to take strong legal action and implement stricter disclosure rules for influencer marketing.26 The penalties for non-compliance, including fines, ad restrictions, and product recalls, are significant and serve as deterrents.21
Despite these strengths, the user's initial query suggests a perception of insufficient enforcement, particularly on platforms like YouTube. This perceived gap between policy stringency and real-world impact is a critical point. The research indicates that South Korea's regulatory framework is indeed strong, with clear laws and a history of enforcement actions.20 However, the perceived lack of control might not stem from a deficiency in regulatory intent or the legal framework itself, but rather from the inherent challenges of policing the vast and dynamic landscape of online content.
The sheer volume of content uploaded daily, coupled with the agility of advertisers and influencers in adapting their tactics to circumvent rules, presents a formidable challenge for real-time monitoring of all user-generated content, including subtle forms of influencer marketing. The "backdoor advertising" issue, for example, was a significant loophole that required specific legislative intervention, indicating a reactive rather than purely proactive regulatory cycle.26 This suggests that while South Korea's regulatory
framework is robust, the enforcement capacity and adaptability to rapidly evolving digital advertising tactics, particularly in the realm of influencer marketing and user-generated content, may still present ongoing challenges. This situation is not unique to South Korea but is a common struggle for regulators worldwide, as they contend with the speed and scale of digital platforms. The issue, therefore, is less about the existence of laws and more about their consistent, real-time application and reach in a highly dynamic digital environment.
The challenges faced by South Korea in regulating misleading health advertisements on platforms like YouTube are not isolated; they are part of a broader global struggle. Several common issues emerge across various jurisdictions, highlighting the inherent complexities of governing digital advertising.
Firstly, the global nature of health misinformation is evident. Misleading health claims, particularly those promoting unproven weight loss products, "miracle cures," or alternative treatments, are a widespread problem across diverse countries, including the Philippines, Ecuador, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.2 For instance, a UNICEF analysis in the Philippines revealed that 99% of food advertisements on social media platforms were deemed unhealthy and unsuitable for children, underscoring the pervasive nature of such content.17
Secondly, difficulties in cross-border enforcement are a significant hurdle. The internet's inherently global reach makes it challenging for national regulators to effectively enforce their laws against content that originates from, or is hosted in, other jurisdictions.14 Different countries possess varying definitions of what constitutes harmful content and employ diverse regulatory models, leading to inconsistencies and creating opportunities for advertisers to exploit these jurisdictional differences.33
Thirdly, the evolving role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents a double-edged sword. While AI is increasingly utilized by platforms for content moderation, assisting in the detection of policy violations 3, it is also being leveraged by malicious actors to generate sophisticated fake videos or fabricate scientific studies. This makes it progressively harder for traditional fact-checkers and regulatory bodies to keep pace with the rapid creation and dissemination of deceptive content.18
Finally, the profit motive and compliance costs often create an underlying tension that can undermine regulatory efforts. Companies may find it economically more viable to pay fines for non-compliance or to engage in lobbying efforts than to invest significantly in costly research and development for genuinely healthy product alternatives, or to fully adhere to stringent advertising standards.35 This economic incentive can perpetuate the cycle of misleading advertising, as the cost of non-compliance might be perceived as less burdensome than the cost of full compliance.
To understand the global landscape, examining specific regulatory approaches and their outcomes in various countries provides valuable context.
In the United States, the regulation of health advertising is primarily shared between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FTC holds primary responsibility for claims made in advertising, while the FDA focuses on claims appearing in product labeling.10 The core principles guiding these agencies are that advertising must be truthful, non-misleading, and substantiated by "competent and reliable scientific evidence".10 Advertisers are also mandated to disclose all material information, including product limitations and potential safety risks, in a clear and conspicuous manner.10
The FTC actively enforces these regulations, pursuing various remedies such as issuing orders to cease deceptive claims, mandating corrective advertising, imposing monetary penalties, and, in severe cases, banning individuals or companies from certain marketing activities.10 The FDA also maintains a "Bad Ad Program" which encourages healthcare providers to report potentially false or misleading prescription drug promotions.38 Despite these efforts, the sheer scale of online advertising and the rapid evolution of misinformation tactics, including AI-generated content, remain significant challenges for U.S. regulators. The FTC has, however, filed numerous cases challenging unsubstantiated health claims for dietary supplements.37
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) serves as the UK's independent regulator for advertising across all media, including digital platforms.39 Its key principle is that advertisements must not materially mislead consumers, and any objective claims, particularly concerning health and beauty products, must be adequately substantiated.40 The ASA evaluates advertisements based on the "overall impression" they convey to consumers, ensuring that the net effect is not deceptive.40
The ASA proactively monitors media and acts on complaints, taking action against advertisements deemed misleading, harmful, or offensive.39 It has a track record of upholding complaints against unproven claims, such as exaggerated capabilities for smartwatches, photo-enhancing applications, and hair transplants.40 Looking ahead, the UK is implementing further advertising restrictions on television and online for products high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) to reduce children's exposure. A prohibition on online HFSS advertising is slated to take effect from October 2025.32 While this demonstrates a proactive approach to protecting vulnerable groups and adapting regulations to the online environment, challenges persist regarding the efficacy of online controls and the potential for advertising to be displaced to unregulated channels.41
In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is the primary regulatory body for medicines and medical devices.42 The TGA mandates that advertisements for therapeutic goods must be accurate, balanced, non-misleading, and contain only substantiated claims that are consistent with the product's entry in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG).43 Advertisements are prohibited from implying that products are universally safe, without side-effects, effective in all cases, or offer a guaranteed cure.43 Furthermore, advertising therapeutic goods to children under 12 years old is strictly prohibited.43
The TGA actively monitors and enforces compliance with these laws.42 There have been instances where Australian private health insurers faced fines for misleading customers and wrongly denying hospital claims.44 The Australian federal government has also proposed a broad prohibition on "marketing for unhealthy foods through online media," signifying a recognition of the pervasive impact of digital marketing on public health.32 Australia's approach demonstrates a strong focus on accuracy, balance, and safeguarding children from harmful advertising.
In Canada, Health Canada and the Competition Bureau are key regulatory bodies involved in overseeing health advertising. Canadian law explicitly prohibits the sale of unauthorized health products or the making of false or misleading claims to prevent, treat, or cure illnesses.31 The government recognizes disinformation, particularly concerning health, as harmful, noting its potential to lead to delayed medical care or the avoidance of effective treatments.1
Health Canada encourages the public to report non-compliant or unauthorized health products through an online complaint form.31 Collaboration with civil society organizations is also evident, as exemplified by Diabetes Canada, which actively reports misleading advertisements to Health Canada and relevant social media platforms when their logos are used without authorization.31 Canada faces challenges with misleading advertisements for products that mimic recognized medications, such as GLP-1 oral drops, and the unauthorized use of charity logos on social media.31 The increasing sophistication of AI in generating fake content also makes fact-checking more difficult.18
A significant observation from the Canadian experience is the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and public digital literacy. The proactive reporting by organizations like Diabetes Canada 31 indicates a reliance on civil society and affected entities to flag issues, suggesting that top-down enforcement alone is insufficient. Moreover, the emphasis on equipping the public with digital literacy and fact-checking tools 2 demonstrates a recognition that consumers must be empowered to critically evaluate information. The concept of "single study syndrome" and the difficulty in verifying AI-generated content further underscore the necessity for consumers to develop critical thinking skills. This highlights that effective regulation is not solely about top-down enforcement but also involves bottom-up reporting and a digitally literate populace capable of identifying and questioning misleading claims, pointing towards a shared responsibility model in combating misinformation.
The comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks across South Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada reveals both shared principles and distinct approaches in addressing misleading health advertisements on digital platforms.
Table 1: Comparative Regulatory Frameworks for Health Advertising on Digital Platforms (Selected Countries)
| Feature / Country | South Korea | United States | United Kingdom | Australia | Canada |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Regulatory Bodies | MFDS, KFTC, KCSC | FTC, FDA | ASA | TGA | Health Canada, Competition Bureau |
| Key Laws/Principles | Health Functional Food Act, Fair Trade Act, PIPA | FTC Act, FDA regulations, Truth-in-Advertising | CAP Code, Consumer Protection | Therapeutic Goods Act, Advertising Code | Food and Drugs Act, Competition Act |
| Specific Health Ad Regulations/Prohibitions | Strict HFF approval; Ban on misleading claims (disease prevention/cure); Clear disclosure for sponsored content; Explicit consent for data use (PIPA). | Claims must be truthful, non-misleading, scientifically substantiated; Fair balance of risks/benefits; Clear disclosure of material facts. | Ads must not materially mislead; Objective claims substantiated; Upcoming online HFSS ad restrictions (Oct 2025). | Ads must be accurate, balanced, substantiated, consistent with ARTG; Prohibited for children <12; Proposed online unhealthy food marketing prohibitions. | Prohibits unauthorized products, false/misleading claims (prevent/treat/cure); Focus on "miracle cures", weight-loss programs, fake pharmacies. |
| Enforcement Mechanisms | Fines, ad restrictions, product recalls, business shutdowns; Legal actions against "backdoor advertising" and false claims by YouTubers. | Orders to stop claims, corrective advertising, monetary penalties, bans; FDA "Bad Ad Program" for healthcare providers to report. | Upholding complaints, proactive checks, legal action; Enforcement by ASA. | Monitoring and enforcement by TGA; Fines for misleading conduct (e.g., private health insurers). | Encourages reporting via online complaint forms; Collaboration with social media platforms; Legal actions against unauthorized products. |
| Key Challenges | Scale of online content, policing influencer marketing/undisclosed ads; Adapting to evolving digital tactics. | Scale of online content, evolving misinformation tactics (AI-generated content); Cross-border enforcement. | Efficacy of online controls; Potential displacement of advertising from TV to online; Defining "less healthy" products. | Pervasive unhealthy food marketing to children/youth online; Ensuring all claims are substantiated. | Widespread misleading social media ads (e.g., unauthorized logo use); AI-generated misinformation; Consumer digital literacy. |
| Noteworthy Outcomes/Effectiveness | Strong domestic laws; Significant fines and stricter disclosure rules implemented post-controversy. | Established legal precedents for truth in advertising; Proactive programs for reporting misleading ads. | Proactive regulation for vulnerable groups (children); Adaptive approach to online advertising. | Clear standards for therapeutic goods; Proposed comprehensive online marketing prohibitions. | Active reporting mechanisms; Recognition of misinformation's harm; Emphasis on public digital literacy. |
Discussion of Successful Strategies (Methods, Processes, Results):
A fundamental and universally adopted standard across all examined jurisdictions (South Korea, US, UK, Australia, and Canada) is the requirement for scientific substantiation for health claims.10 This principle mandates that any objective claim about health benefits or product efficacy must be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. This serves as a consistent and effective baseline for combating unscientific claims, ensuring that products are marketed based on verifiable facts rather than speculation.
Beyond mere truthfulness, the emphasis on clear and conspicuous disclosure of material information, including potential risks and limitations, is a critical best practice.10 South Korea's robust response to the "backdoor advertising" controversy, which led to stringent regulations requiring clear disclosure of sponsored content 26, serves as a valuable lesson applicable globally. This proactive approach to transparency in influencer marketing is essential to prevent consumers from being misled by disguised promotions.
Inter-agency cooperation is another crucial element for effective regulation. The coordinated efforts between bodies such as the FDA and FTC in the US 10, and the established reporting mechanisms from health organizations to Health Canada 31, demonstrate that a multi-stakeholder approach is significantly more effective than relying on a single regulatory entity. This collaborative model allows for a broader reach and more comprehensive oversight.
Targeted protection for vulnerable groups represents a proactive and necessary step in safeguarding specific demographics particularly susceptible to misleading claims. The UK's initiatives to implement further restrictions on advertising unhealthy products to children online 32, and Australia's proposed broad prohibitions on online marketing for unhealthy foods 32, exemplify this approach. These measures acknowledge the unique vulnerabilities of children and adolescents to persuasive advertising tactics.
Finally, the promotion of proactive reporting and digital literacy empowers both individuals and professionals to become active participants in the enforcement mechanism. Programs like the FDA's "Bad Ad Program" 38 and Canada's emphasis on public digital literacy 2 are crucial given the immense scale of online content. By educating consumers to identify red flags such as "miracle cures," unverified testimonials, or extraordinary claims that seem "too good to be true" 2, these initiatives foster a more discerning public capable of questioning and reporting misleading content.
The comparative analysis highlights a significant observation: a regulatory paradox exists within digital platforms. While many countries possess strong laws against misleading health advertisements, and platforms themselves have detailed policies in place, the actual experience of users, as reflected in the initial query, often points to a perceived lack of effective enforcement. This is not necessarily an indictment of policy design, but rather a struggle with the inherent characteristics of digital platforms: their global reach, the sheer volume and velocity of content, the ease with which new deceptive content can be created (including AI-generated material), and the strong economic incentives driving advertising. The ongoing "cat-and-mouse dynamic" between platforms and ad blockers 19 serves as a microcosm of this larger struggle. This suggests that traditional regulatory models, often designed for slower-moving traditional media, are constantly playing catch-up in the rapidly evolving digital realm. True effectiveness in combating misleading health advertisements requires not just stricter laws, but also advanced technological solutions for detection, enhanced international cooperation, and a fundamental shift towards a shared responsibility model that actively involves platforms, advertisers, content creators, and, crucially, consumers themselves.
To effectively combat the pervasive issue of misleading health advertisements on YouTube and other digital platforms, a multi-faceted and collaborative approach is essential. The following recommendations aim to enhance regulatory effectiveness:
The landscape of digital health advertising and its regulation is continuously evolving, driven by technological advancements and shifts in consumer behavior. Several key trends are anticipated to shape this environment:
The user's concern regarding the prevalence of unscientific health advertisements on YouTube in South Korea is well-founded and reflects a significant global challenge rather than an isolated national issue. Countries worldwide, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, are grappling with similar problems related to misleading health claims, particularly for weight loss products, unproven therapies, and dietary supplements. While South Korea has demonstrated a strong commitment to regulating health functional foods and has proactively addressed "backdoor advertising" through significant legal actions, the sheer scale and dynamic nature of online content, coupled with inherent economic incentives, pose persistent enforcement difficulties.
The analysis indicates that effective global strategies are converging on several core principles: rigorous scientific substantiation for all health claims, transparent and unavoidable disclosure of commercial relationships, and robust multi-stakeholder collaboration among platforms, regulators, and civil society. The future of combating misleading health advertisements on YouTube and other digital platforms will depend on a concerted and adaptive effort. This effort must combine robust legal frameworks with advanced technological solutions for detecting and countering misinformation, foster greater international regulatory harmonization, and, crucially, cultivate a highly digitally literate public capable of discerning credible health information from deceptive claims. This multi-faceted approach is essential to protect consumers and uphold public health standards in the increasingly complex digital age.