FTC Eyeing 'Alarming' Attorney Ads on Pharma
The FTC's initiative—which comes in the wake of medical research and business groups' expressions of concern—is aimed at curbing attorney ads that could cause people to become so concerned about the safety of their medications they simply stop taking them.
December 05, 2019 at 04:36 PM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A 2017 survey from the public opinion research firm Public Opinion Strategies found that nearly three-quarters of Americans had seen TV ads by attorneys warning about the dangers of certain pharmaceuticals. It turns out, the Federal Trade Commission has watched these ads too, and it doesn't always like what it sees.
Letters recently obtained by ALM show that several law firms and legal marketers across the country received warning letters in September over TV ads they were airing about allegedly dangerous medications that are now the subject of mass tort litigation. And, according to an FTC attorney, those letters were part of a new initiative by the agency aimed at keeping an eye on legal ads that may be alarming for viewers and could potentially lead them to stop taking their prescribed medications.
"The issue has been percolating for a while," Richard Cleland, an assistant director at the FTC's advertising practices division of the consumer protection bureau.
According to Cleland, the FTC has begun looking into alarming attorney advertising after getting some interest business chambers and members of Congress, including a letter from Rep. Andrew Harris, R-Maryland. Cleland said a 2016 resolution by the American Medical Association pledging to advocate for more warning requirements on attorney advertising also led agency officials to begin taking a look at the issue.
The AMA's resolution came after the the Heart Rhythm medical journal published a study in 2016 outlining more than 30 cases of people suffering strokes, heart attacks and even death when they decided to stop taking the blood thinner Xarelto after they saw alarming attorney ads about the drug.
The FTC's initiative—which comes in the wake of medical research and business groups' expressions of concern—is aimed at curbing attorney ads that could cause people to become so concerned about the safety of their medications they simply stop taking them. Cleland said.
In September, the FTC took its first direct actions by issuing warning letters to seven law firms and legal marketing companies across the country, sending out a press release about the warning letters and publishing an explanatory post on its website going over exactly what the FTC would be looking for when reviewing attorney ads.
The letters, obtained through a request under the Freedom of Information Act, showed that most of the problematic ads focused on the diabetes drug Invokana, which saw a wave of filings in Philadelphia in 2016 and has since become the subject of a multidistrict litigation in New Jersey federal court.
The letters were sent to MCM Services Group, a Minnesota marketing company; Amicus Legal Group, which is based in Valencia, California; the Boston-area law firm Sokolove Law; Knightline Legal, which based in Redwood City, California; the Bel Air, Maryland, law firm KBA Attorneys; and the Houston-based law firms, Pulaski Law Firm and Matthews and Associates, which was part of the trial team that recently won a $33 million award in Philadelphia over an allegedly defective blood filter device.
Ketterer declined to comment about the letters, and ALM was unable to find a working phone number for MCM Services Group. All other organizations did not return a call seeking comment.
Five of the letters warned about Invokana ads, with some saying the ads gave the false impression that the U.S. Food and Drug administration warned that patients should stop taking the drugs. Others allegedly warned of a substantial risk that users could suffer gangrene of the genitals, but, the letter notes, the FDA describes that condition as only a "rare side effect."
One letter focused on an ad about Xarleto, saying it implied that the risks of the drug outweighed the benefits. Another letter focused on ads about the heartburn medications Nexium, Prilosec and Prevacid, which, the FTC contended, mischaracterized the risk of stomach cancer by claiming that prolonged use of both prescription and over the counter heartburn medications—known as proton pump inhibitors—could double a person's risk of cancer. According to the FTC letter, the study referred to in the ad actually said the stomach cancer risk was only increased by .043%.
Cleland said that to his knowledge the FTC has not sent similar letters to attorneys warning about these types of ads in the past.
"It's not uncommon for us, where we are going into an area that we haven't been in, to use vehicles like warning letters, at least at an initial stage," Cleland said. "It serves an educational effect, and normally, we've found that we get pretty good compliance using that approach."
Cleland did not speak specifically about the letter sent out in September, but said that, beyond filing warning letters, the agency could open an investigation in a firm's conduct, which, depending on the findings, could lead to legal action either in court in through an administrative process. But, he said, the agency does not have the ability to simply fine the firms.
For now, Cleland said, the FTC will continue to eye the issue.
"At this point, we will continue to monitor and look at any complaints that we get," Cleland said.
Compliance attorneys said they were not surprised by the FTC's interest in attorney advertising.
"Health-related representations are always ripe for aggressive regulatory action[,]" Richard Newman of New York-based Hinch Newman said.
Gordon Law Group attorney Andrew Gordon, who focuses on compliance in issues like advertising and e-commerce, said he was likewise not surprised, although he said there was little precedent for the actions, especially since the FTC often goes after ads that are aimed at getting people to buy products, rather than pursuing actions over concerns that people might stop using a product.
However, given the way attorney advertising has gone national in recent years, Gordon said it makes sense the FTC would want to keep an eye on the issue.
" Historically, it's been state bar associations that are the most concerned with advertising, but now there are some attorneys that have these large national campaigns," he said.
Gordon said he hoped lawyers will review their ads in light of the FTC's new guidance and will take the FTC's warnings seriously, as the FTC has broad discretion when it comes to pursuing potential violations of the FTC Act. He noted that things as small as putting warnings at the beginning of an ad rather than at the end could be the difference between getting a warning letter and not.
"A lot of attorneys have to walk a thin line between educating the public and scaring them," he said.
Although the letters may have come as a surprise to some practitioners, the reasoning behind them and the dual press releases could have something to do with a concept all attorneys should be familiar with: notice.
"Attorneys are an interesting area to potentially target," Gordon said. "They're trying to put everything out there, so later, if cases are brought, the violations can be pointed to, and the FTC guidance that's been made public[.]"
READ THE WARNING LETTERS:
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250