Legal Services Advertising

Trial lawyers and aggregators increasingly spend large sums of money on television, digital, and print advertising to recruit new clients for class action lawsuits. Much of this advertising is conducted by aggregators: businesses that recruit potential plaintiffs and then sell their information to law firms.

The Problem

Consumers see doomsday ads about the lethal effects of medications or even general medical injury, and consequently stop using their medicine. This is often done without consulting a doctor, causing health problems for the patients and increasing litigation risk for the product manufacturers. These over-the-top advertisements from personal injury attorneys with catchy jingles and toll-free numbers pose a serious danger. These ads undermine the simple notion that physicians and health care providers, not personal injury lawyers or the “aggregators” who run the ads for the lawyers, should dispense medical advice. The reason why trial lawyers pump significant money into these ad buys is because, armed with more clients, they can boost settlements and payouts when they go after large corporations. This leads to larger contingency fees for themselves.

ATRA’s Position

ATRA supports legislation that places reasonable regulations regarding deceptive or misleading lawsuit or legal services advertisements.

Search Through ATRA Reforms

Search through all of ATRA's reforms around Legal Services Advertising

No related legislation or reform items to display.



Legal Services Advertising News and Press

Explore ATRA's most recent press releases and blogs around Legal Services Advertising

New Report Exposes Oregon’s Soaring Trial Lawyer Ad Spending and Rising Litigation Risks

The American Tort Reform Association released a new analysis today reveali...

The High Cost of Junk Science Verdicts in Los Angeles

This op-ed was authored by ATRA’s Lauren Sheets Jarrell and was orig...

Letter-to-the-Editor – A Better Target for Prasad: Personal Injury Ads

This letter-to-the-editor was published by the Wall Street Journal and app...

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Legal Services Advertising
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.
(Tenn., filed April 15, 2016): Arguing that Tennessee’s statutory limit on punitive damages is constitutional.  The statutory limit does not infringe ...
Tennessee
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(11th Cir., filed April 22, 2016).  Arguing that reliance on general, non-specific verdicts to foreclose litigation of highly specific issues that may...
11th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Davis v. Honeywell Inc.
(Cal., filed April 29, 2016): Arguing that the court should clarify what constitutes a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of developing ...
California
  • Court Denied Cert iconCourt Denied Cert
Beason v. I.E. Miller
(Ok., filed June 6, 2016): Arguing that the statutory limits on noneconomic damages are constitutional and does not violate a person’s right to a jury...
Oklahoma
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
In Re Dupont de Nemours and Company C-8 Litigation
(6th Cir., filed June 20, 2016): Arguing that the court improperly blended specific and general causation and that there is a vital distinction betwee...
6th Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby No. 15-513
(U.S., filed August 8, 2016): Arguing that the blatant violation of the “seal” requirement by relator in a false claims case should result in a dismis...
SCOTUS
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Robinson v. Pfizer
(8th. Cir., filed September 12, 2016): Arguing that expansive venue laws has led to venue shopping and abuses in Missouri.  The Court must reign in th...
8th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Cerveny v. Aventis
(10th Cir., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that courts must ask whether federal law authorized the defendant to do what the plaintiff claims state...
10th Circuit
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite
(Miss., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that under MS statute, evidence of a plaintiff’s nonuse of his seatbelt is admissible to refute a plaintiff...
Mississippi
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Walker v. Ford
(Col., filed September 27, 2016): Arguing that the“risk-benefit” test for strict product liability incorporates the “consumer expectation” test, such ...
Colorado
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position



The American Tort Reform Association is the nation’s first organization dedicated exclusively to reforming the civil justice system through education and legislative enactment.

To receive occasional updates from ATRA, enter your email address:
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.
© 2026 ATRA. All rights reserved.