You’ve probably seen the commercials: an ominous voice urging you to call now if you’ve taken a certain drug. What they don’t tell you? Some patients actually stop life-saving medications — sometimes with deadly consequences.
Pharmaceutical ads are among MAHA’s latest targets, after President Trump signed a memo this week encouraging a crackdown spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The White House memo opined how such ads, which the FDA regulates, “can mislead the public about the risks and benefits… [and] inappropriately intervene in the physician-patient relationship.”
While some may agree that these commercials can be “absurd,” as Sen. Bernie Sanders (D) has described them, there are checks in place to protect consumers. A viewer who’s interested in a product must speak with a doctor, who will assess whether the patient would benefit from the medication.
Pharmaceutical ads are intended to educate people about products that can improve, or even save, their lives. Ads are submitted to the FDA to ensure a “‘fair balance’ of information about drug risks as compared with information about drug benefits.” The FDA can stop an ad or seek corrections if it overstates benefits, downplays risks, or makes claims not backed by substantial evidence.
While the FDA admitted they’ve been “lax” in enforcement, there are other ads that bombard consumers with misleading information about pharmaceutical products and inappropriately intervene in the physician-patient relationship that are almost completely unregulated.
Lawsuit ads often feature an ominous voice instructing viewers to “call right now” if they’ve taken a certain prescription drug or warn that they or their loved ones may develop a horrific injury if they’ve used another common product.
There is no “fair balance” or FDA oversight on lawsuit ads mentioning pharmaceutical products. The ads are all about risks, with little or no acknowledgement that a side effect may be extremely rare or that the product is beneficial overall. The side effect is often a complication known by the FDA when it approved the drug and is carefully considered by doctors before prescribing the drug for patients.
Misleading lawsuit ads have been associated directly with patient deaths. A 2019 FDA study found 66 reports of adverse events, including seven deaths, following patients discontinuing their blood thinner medication after viewing a lawyer advertisement. 98% of those patients stopped medication use without consulting with their doctor.
Dr. Ilana Kutinsky, who has testified before Congress on the issue and was a provider for one of the deceased, stated: “Patients are dying because they are afraid to take the medications prescribed for them.”
Misleading lawsuit ads have led people at risk of HIV to not take preventative medications. They have caused viewers to mistakenly believe the FDA has recalled products, when it has not. Studies repeatedly show that lawsuit ads put public health at risk.
The goal of deceptive lawsuit advertisers is simple: generate as many “leads” as possible, flood the courts with speculative claims, and use the threat of an occasional “nuclear verdict®” to pressure the manufacturer to settle.
In 2024, TV lawyers and lead generators spent roughly $2.5 billion on nearly 27 million legal services ads. In some instances, lawyers and lead generators spent more than $100 million on ads targeting a single medication. It’s only a matter of time before the next misleading advertising campaign targeting a prescription drug begins.
The American Medical Association has called for action, describing lawsuit ads targeting pharmaceuticals as “fearmongering” and “dangerous to the public-at-large.” A small but growing number of states have clamped down on some of the most blatant deceptive practices in pharmaceutical lawsuit ads, such as presenting them as “medical alerts” or flashing the FDA logo to suggest government affiliation or endorsement.
These ads undermine the simple notion that physicians and health care providers – not TV and billboard lawyers – should dispense medical advice.
If Trump and RFK Jr. want to ensure Americans hear “truthful and non-misleading information” in prescription drug ads, they should condemn the lawsuit industry and demand oversight of pharmaceutical litigation ads as well.
But given RFK Jr.’s history and deep ties to the trial bar, it makes sense that they’re only demonizing FDA-approved ads about FDA-approved products while ignoring that if a trial lawyer pays enough, they can say whatever they want on TV, regardless of who it harms.
If we truly care about protecting patients, it’s time to hold trial lawyer ads to the same standards as pharma ads. Americans deserve medical advice from their doctors — not the plaintiffs’ bar.
