Regulating Online Medicinal Advertisements in Malaysia: Legal Gaps, Enforcement Challenges, and Lessons from Australia

The rapid growth of digital platforms has fundamentally transformed the promotion and consumption of health-related products, enabling online medicinal advertisements to reach consumers with unprecedented speed, scale, and cross-platform amplification. This paper critical review of the sufficiency of the legal framework in Malaysia regulating the online pharmaceutical advertisement, with respect to the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act 1956 (MASA 1956) and its supporting mechanisms in the Consumer Protection Act 1999 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. Using a qualitative doctrinal and comparative legal approach, the paper compares the regulatory framework of Malaysia to that of therapeutic goods advertising in Australia, which is regulated by Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code Instrument 2021. The analysis is based on four regulatory theories, Responsive Regulation, Deterrence Theory, Risk-Based Regulation and Risk Society Theory, and it shows that the framework in Malaysia is limited by definitional vagueness, non-binding rules, low fines in the statutes, and reactive enforcement mechanisms that are ineffective in the digital advertising ecosystem. The discussion concludes with specific reform suggestions to enhance the Malaysian regulatory control of online medicinal advertisements.

Online Medicinal Advertisements, MASA 1956

1. Ab Aziz, N. H. (2013). The adequacy of the laws and regulations relating to online advertising in Malaysia from the consumer protection perspective. Universiti Teknologi MARA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ang, J. Y., Ooi, G. S., Abd Aziz, F., & Tong, S. F. (2023). Risk-taking in consumers’ online purchases of health supplements and natural products: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 16(1), 134. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Black, J., & Murray, A. D. (2019). Regulating AI and machine learning: Setting the regulatory agenda. European Journal of Law and Technology, 10(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bohari, N. H., Alias, A., & Ghani, A. S. A. (2022). Initial regulatee perception of the self-regulation approach in the regulatory enforcement of medicine advertisements. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 13(1), 311–344. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Free Malaysia Today. (2025, August 10). 2,000 unauthorised ads on health products pulled down since Jan 1. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2025/08/10/2000-unauthorised-ads-on-health-products-pulled-down-since-jan-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hassali, M., & Shakeel, S. (2020). Pharmaceutical and cosmeceutical marketing and advertising in Malaysia: An overview of current governing laws and regulations. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hochberg, J. W. (2004). Nailing Jell-O to a wall: Regulating Internet pharmacies. Journal of Health Law. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Idris, S. H., & Che Hashim, R. (2012). Consumer protection in the online sale of medicinal products in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Law and Policy, 2(4), 393–406. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ismail, S. F., Daud, M., Jalil, J. A., Azmi, I. M., & Safuan, S. (2018). Protecting consumers from misleading online advertisement for herbal and traditional medicines in Malaysia: Are the laws sufficient? In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Liang, B. A., & Mackey, T. K. (2011). Prevalence and global health implications of social media in direct-to-consumer drug advertising. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(3), e64. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1775 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Mackey, T. K., & Nayyar, G. (2016). Digital danger: A review of the global public health, patient safety, and cybersecurity threats posed by illicit online pharmacies. British Medical Bulletin, 118(1), 110–126. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission. (2019). Internet users survey 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Marimuthu, S. B. (2016). Should advertisements of prescription drugs directed at consumers remain banned in Malaysia? Australian Journal of Asian Law, 17, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ministry of Health Malaysia. (2019). Pharmaceutical services programme annual report 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ministry of Health Malaysia. (2024). Medicine advertisements board (MAB) guidelines and policy. https://pharmacy.moh.gov.my/en/documents/medicine-advertisements-board-mab-guidelines-and-policy.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Musa, N., & Amin, N. (2016). Consumer protection against misleading advertisements of health products in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 6(1S), 49–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Nawi, N. F., & Faizol, A. (2019). Influencer marketing: The case for regulation in Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Risk, A., & Dzenowagis, J. (2001). Review of internet health information system quality initiatives. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 5(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Shapira, R. (2022). The challenge of holding big business accountable. Cardozo Law Review, 44(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Sukan, N. H., & Pilus, M. (2014). A legal study of internet advertisement: Medicine. Universiti Teknologi MARA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Therapeutic Goods Administration. (2021). Therapeutic goods advertising code. Australian Government. https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/therapeutic-goods-advertising-code [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ventola, C. L. (2011). Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising: Therapeutic or toxic? Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 36(10), 669–684. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.