In First, Chamber Calls for FTC and FDA to Regulate Attorney Drug Ads
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says there's a lack of oversight for drug and medical device lawsuit advertising that must be addressed.
October 24, 2017 at 09:01 PM
5 minute read
It's rare to see the Chamber of Commerce advocate in favor of more regulation, but in a new report released Tuesday, the powerful business lobby is urging the government to step in and regulate attorney advertising.
The report from the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform said television and internet advertisements by attorneys encouraging viewers to file lawsuits against prescription drug and medical device companies are on the rise. The Chamber called on the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to label the ads “unfair or deceptive” under the FTC Act. It's the first time the Chamber has pushed for government oversight of the ads. The group claims they harm patients by dissuading them from taking prescribed medicines and treatments.
“While the purpose of such ads may be to inform injured people of their legal rights, misleading
information frightens viewers into stopping their medications and may deter others from seeking treatment,” the report said.
Currently, state bar associations have oversight over any misleading attorney advertisements, handling complaints filed in individual jurisdictions. The report said that while bar associations have rules governing some parts of attorney advertising, they don't actively monitor the process, and that the FTC “has generally taken a hands-off approach to lawyer advertising practices” by deferring to the state bars.
The report said the FTC, along with the FDA, should adopt regulations that specifically address misleading lawsuit advertising. Ads that would fall under the category would include those that present themselves as a “medical alert” or “health alert,” display the logo of the FDA or other government agencies, indicate a product has been recalled when it hasn't, or fail to inform the viewer of the identity of the ad's sponsor. The report also said Congress should give the FDA authority to monitor lawsuit advertising.
The Chamber began advocating against the ads last year, and the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing in June. Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte also sent letters in March to state bar associations urging them to block attorneys from airing ads that might cause patients to stop prescribed treatments. In addition to the Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association, which lobbies on behalf of doctors, also advocates for greater regulation of attorney advertisements. During the June hearing, two doctors told lawmakers they had patients who stopped taking prescribed medicines after seeing the ads.
In response to Goodlatte's inquiry, then-American Bar Association president Linda Klein said in a letter that false or misleading advertisements by lawyers are already regulated, using the same standard the AMA applies to physician advertising.
“The ABA appreciates your interest in this subject and your concern about individuals who might be harmed when discontinuing a course of medication because a consumer misunderstands a lawyer's advertisement,” Klein wrote to Goodlatte. “We hope that you share our interest in ensuring that individuals who are injured or killed each year by taking prescribed medications, or their survivors, are able to obtain information about their legal rights and engage counsel to seek redress if supported by the law and facts in each case.”
Bob Goldwater, an Arizona-based personal injury attorney whose firm spent roughly $25 million on ads targeting Xarelto and other drugs last year, said in an email to the National Law Journal that Goodlatte and the Chamber are just trying to protect drug companies from getting sued. He said both Goodlatte and the AMA cited a study to back their claims about the harmful effects of the ads, but the study was funded by Xarelto-owner Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and the lead author, Dr. Paul Burton, works for Janssen. The company is facing thousands of lawsuits over the drug.
“It is very important that people know the dangerous side effects that drugs have,” Goldwater wrote. “Oftentimes, drug companies hide or underreport the side effects of their drugs to the FDA and the general public. … Unfortunately, Goodlatte and the business lobby are much [more] concerned about protecting the multibillion-dollar drug companies from getting sued over dangerous drugs.”
The Chamber's report, citing work by the research firm X Ante, said the number of lawsuit ads on television each year has tripled in the past decade. Between 2015 and 2017, ads recruiting clients for lawsuits against prescription drug and medical device manufacturers currently make up the largest share of lawsuit advertising, far outnumbering ads for asbestos, energy, automotive and agricultural product lawsuits, and lawsuit funding, the report said.
The report also suggested lawyers could use ads to influence jury pools. It noted that in 2016, the St. Louis area had the most attorney advertisements about potential adverse health effects from talc powder. The state courts in St. Louis are currently home to litigation against Johnson & Johnson related to claims its talc powder could cause ovarian cancer. However, the report said most plaintiffs in the talc cases live outside of Missouri.
“That raises the question: Are the TV ads in the St. Louis market ineffective in identifying clients or could the ads serve another purpose?” the report asks.
A spokesman for the American Association for Justice, the world's largest trial bar association, said that if consumers are harmed or killed by prescription drugs or devices, patients and families should know there are legal options to hold negligent companies accountable.
“In every state, attorneys must abide by ethical conduct, including rules on lawyer advertising,” the spokesman said. “These rules are based on the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct and expressly prohibit false or misleading advertising. If the relevant standards are met, attorneys have a First Amendment right to advertise their legal services just like other professionals.”
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 AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTexas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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