As Taiwan moves to curb illicit vape trade, an unforeseen clash between public health and digital freedom is exposing the growing pains of regulating online speech in a democracy.

When Taiwan’s amended Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act (THPA) took effect in March 2023, it was hailed by public health authorities as a milestone in curbing youth vaping and protecting citizens from new forms of nicotine addiction. The act outlawed the manufacture, import, sale, and advertising of all electronic cigarettes.

But what began as a health regulation has morphed into a digital governance controversy. By interpreting any online reference to e-cigarettes — including user-generated posts, product reviews, or even innocuous mentions — as potential “advertisements,” authorities have extended enforcement far beyond tobacco control.

The result has been a wave of fines and legal uncertainty. Digital platforms warn that such enforcement undermines freedom of expression and Taiwan’s credibility as a predictable regulatory environment.

Taiwan’s Health Promotion Administration (HPA), a unit under the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW), has defended its broad interpretation of the THPA as a necessary tool to suppress online marketing of banned products. In practice, however, enforcement has reached into uncharted territory.

“Many of our members have received fines from municipal and county governments across the island,” says Tseng Ken-ying, partner at Lee and Li and legal advisor to the Taiwan Internet and E-Commerce Association (TiEA). “Each ticket is around NT$300,000. They are issued for things as trivial as a user mentioning ‘candy’ (a common slang term for e-cigarettes) or showing a picture of someone vaping.”

For Taiwan’s online platforms, these fines represent more than inconvenience. “They must pay the fine before they can even appeal, and they also need to spend on legal costs,” Tseng says. “It’s both a financial and time-consuming burden.”

TiEA members report that the MOHW has expanded the definition of “advertisement” so broadly that it encompasses almost any online content referencing e-cigarettes.

The safe harbor gap

At the core of the debate is whether Taiwan’s approach aligns with international democratic standards for platform regulation. Around the world, most democracies — including the EU and the United States — operate under “safe harbor” frameworks that protect intermediaries from liability for user-generated content (UGC), provided they comply with notice-and-takedown procedures.

The Global Network Initiative (GNI), a coalition of technology companies and human rights groups, argues that Taiwan’s model diverges significantly from these norms. “Globally, most democracies adopt conditional safe-harbor frameworks shielding intermediaries from liability as long as they comply with due diligence obligations,” says Shreya Tewari, policy and communications lead at GNI. “Taiwan’s approach treats platforms — including search engines — as ‘advertisers’ or ‘mass media’ that can be held liable for UGC, with an implicit expectation of pre-screening.”

This system, Tewari adds, “contradicts the EU’s clear prohibition on general monitoring obligations for intermediaries and presents conflicts with prevailing understandings of how freedom of expression should be protected consistent with international human rights law.”

Tewari warns that strict liability often leads to “over-removal and chilling effects on free expression” as platforms err on the side of deleting lawful content to avoid penalties. It can also result in “privacy-invasive monitoring” and “disproportionate compliance costs” that smaller firms cannot bear, concentrating market power among a few dominant players.

GNI member companies operating in Taiwan have voiced particular concern over the lack of procedural fairness and the short timeframes for compliance. “Companies face the imposition of fines even after removing flagged content,” Tewari says. “They are expected to act within an impractical 24-hour turnaround, and there is no administrative safe harbor.”

A fragmented regulatory framework

Civil society organizations share similar concerns. The Open Culture Foundation (OCF), a Taipei-based nonprofit focused on digital rights, sees the THPA as symptomatic of a deeper governance problem.

“Taiwan’s regulatory framework for platform liability over user-generated content is fragmented,” says Singing Li, OCF’s chief executive officer. “It gives the government enough space to enforce laws without a clear procedural framework or principle about when they can demand content takedowns.”

Li and her team point out that the government once considered introducing a Digital Intermediary Services Act (DISA) — a bill bearing strong resemblance to the EU’s Digital Services Act — to establish consistent rules for online intermediaries.

“We even hosted workshops with civil society and the tech community to review the draft line by line,” she says. “But the government halted the process after facing some resistance, and since then each agency has started amending its own laws to deal with online content separately.”

Without a unified legal foundation, enforcement has become inconsistent and, at times, arbitrary. “Every agency tries to regulate the internet based on its own image of what it thinks works,” Li says. “This makes things worse for everyone — for platforms, for users, and for internet freedom in Taiwan.”

The reported filtering of keywords such as “e-cigarette” or even “candy” has disrupted legitimate commerce unrelated to vaping. “Keyword filtering amounts to general monitoring, which the EU explicitly bans,” Li notes.

However, she emphasizes that the problem extends beyond the government. “Platforms should also be more transparent about how they process government requests,” she says. “Everything is opaque. Users often don’t know why their accounts were taken down or how to appeal. Both sides need to be accountable.”

OCF has long advocated for multi-stakeholder dialogue to restore balance. “We lost the culture of open consultation,” Li says. “For the THPA, the government gave only 7 days for public comment — later extended to 14. That’s not meaningful engagement.”

She adds that public awareness of digital rights remains low. “Most citizens think ‘it’s about protecting my health or my money from scams, so it must be good.’ But freedom of speech and digital rights need to be protected. If we lose them here, the same template could be copied into other laws.”

The cost of compliance

The digital rights implications extend far beyond the tobacco sector. As GNI’s Tewari explains, “Strict liability frameworks disproportionately burden small and medium-sized enterprises, increase market concentration, and risk regulatory contagion. Normalization of strict liability in one category spreads to others, causing internet fragmentation.”

From a rights-based perspective, the THPA’s enforcement model could set a precedent for future content regulation, including anti-scam or child-protection laws, that lacks procedural safeguards. GNI has urged Taiwan to “establish limited liability for intermediaries tied to clear notice-and-action procedures and transparency obligations,” and to “clearly distinguish between advertisements and third-party UGC.”

The organization also calls for “open, multistakeholder consultation processes” and “appeal mechanisms” to ensure due process. “Blanket pre-screening requirements for all content should be avoided, as they are incompatible with international human rights standards and technological realities,” Tewari says.

For Taiwan’s domestic companies, the issue is not only legal but existential. “Our members are mostly small or medium-sized businesses,” Lee and Li’s Tseng says. “They cannot afford the constant cycle of paying fines, appealing, and adjusting systems to comply with unclear rules. It creates an impossible-to-comply-with environment.”

Even multinational platforms are feeling the strain, with search engines reportedly receiving enforcement letters from local health bureaus and facing multiple pending appeals. Despite takedowns, penalties continue to accrue. Tewari characterizes this scenario as “a real operational risk” that undermines Taiwan’s standing as a stable investment destination.

Adding to the uncertainty is the government’s plan to further tighten the law. Draft amendments would require online platforms to remove flagged content within 24 hours, with fines of up to NT$2 million (US$65,000) for noncompliance. The proposal would apply to all types of internet operators, including those without a physical presence in Taiwan, who would be required to appoint a local representative to liaise with the government.

“Yet there’s no clarity on what constitutes illegal content in the draft amendments,” Tseng says. “But there’s a clear penalty for being late. The content censorship power of the competent authority remains wide and vague.”

Beyond the immediate financial cost, Tseng warns that the THPA’s enforcement has affected Taiwan’s reputation as a liberal digital hub. “I have practiced internet law since 1999,” she says. “For years, I would tell clients that under a democratic government, website blocking would never happen in Taiwan. But that has changed.” She adds that “this really damages our reputation as the most democratic hub in East Asia.”

A path forward

All stakeholders interviewed for this article expressed willingness to work with the government toward a balanced solution. TiEA has submitted two main proposals: first, that authorities issue clear guidance distinguishing advertisements from ordinary speech; and second, that platforms be granted a safe harbor, where liability applies only if they fail to act after official notice.

So far, the Executive Yuan has referred TiEA’s requests to the MOHW, which has “disagreed” with the association’s interpretation and maintains that its broader definition of advertisement is justified by public health concerns.

OCF and GNI both advocate for reviving the idea of a unified Digital Intermediary Services Act, which could create coherent rules across ministries. “We need one general regulatory framework, not fragmented enforcement by every agency,” OCF’s Li says.

However, political obstacles remain. “The NCC (National Communications Commission) once tried to push the Digital Intermediary Services Act again, but now the political atmosphere is too chaotic,” says OCF Research Manager Tang Chia-shuo. “Budget fights and party struggles have made it hard to advance governance-oriented agendas.”

Still, he remains hopeful that dialogue can resume. “All stakeholders should take responsibility. We need education, transparency, and principles. Otherwise, laws like the THPA could become templates for broader censorship.”

Tewari of GNI echoes that sentiment, emphasizing that Taiwan’s strong democratic foundation and digital leadership give it the capacity to align with international best practices. Achieving this balance will require transparent, rights-based policymaking that upholds public health objectives and fundamental freedoms, the organization argues.

As Tseng cautions, “When every agency writes its own rules, enforcement becomes inconsistent and businesses lose trust in the system.” To this end, she says, Taiwan needs a single authority in government to unify standards and communication.

In the broader sense, the debate mirrors global challenges in regulating online spaces without eroding civil liberties. For Taiwan — a democracy often praised as a model in Asia — the outcome of this policy discussion will signal how it intends to balance public health imperatives with the open, rights-respecting digital environment that has underpinned its innovation economy.

Li summarizes the stakes plainly: “If we don’t protect internet freedom now, the same mechanism used to block e-cigarette content today could be used to silence other forms of speech tomorrow. That’s why this conversation is so important.”

The MOHW and HPA did not reply to requests for comment before publication.