Disclaimers

[wadio]

I'm curious to know why advertisers are allowed to bury their disclaimers, both on radio and TV. Is there any proposed legislation to curb this practice, and have there been any lawsuits by people who feel that they weren't properly informed about risks, particularly concerning pharmaceuticals?

I bring this up because lately I've been hearing a radio spot for "a little pink pill for women" where the disclaimer is 60-seconds long and sounds like it was recorded on a cellphone buried underneath a pillow. The spot itself is about 30-seconds and is loud and clear. (I stream everything so maybe it's not carried OTA.)

Automotive disclaimers are generally sped up, and although the TV drug ads aren't, they try to divert the viewers' attention with people jpyfully dancing around the screen while they list all kinds of problems including possible death. I can't understand why that works but apparently it does.

Any thoughts?

 

[kwthom]

The omission on *how* they are presented is a bit ambiguous - on purpose.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm curious to know why advertisers are allowed to bury their disclaimers, both on radio and TV. Is there any proposed legislation to curb this practice, and have there been any lawsuits by people who feel that they weren't properly informed about risks, particularly concerning pharmaceuticals?

There have been lots of lawsuits and complaints and as a result lots of new rules that advertisers then try to circumvent. That leads to more lawsuits and more new rules that are once again circumvented. It's an endless game of whack a mole.

FTC Fine On Radio Advertiser Suggests Need For Ads To Go Beyond ‘Restrictions Apply’ Disclaimers.

The Federal Trade Commission continues to crack down on advertising, with its latest enforcement going after a frequent user of Midwest radio. The FTC has ordered Ohio-based LCA Vision to

www.insideradio.com

Everybody has lawyers, and every ad has to get approval from those lawyers. Because they know there will be one person who complains, and they need to have their butts covered when it happens. It still comes down to "Let The Buyer Beware" (caveat emptor) and "If it sounds too good, it is."

 

[anotherguyTN]

What gets me is how they will say don't use the medicine if you're allergic to it. But how so you know until you've tried it???

 

[wadio]

There have been lots of lawsuits and complaints and as a result lots of new rules that advertisers then try to circumvent. That leads to more lawsuits and more new rules that are once again circumvented. It's an endless game of whack a mole.

FTC Fine On Radio Advertiser Suggests Need For Ads To Go Beyond ‘Restrictions Apply’ Disclaimers.

The Federal Trade Commission continues to crack down on advertising, with its latest enforcement going after a frequent user of Midwest radio. The FTC has ordered Ohio-based LCA Vision to

www.insideradio.com

Everybody has lawyers, and every ad has to get approval from those lawyers. Because they know there will be one person who complains, and they need to have their butts covered when it happens. It still comes down to "Let The Buyer Beware" (caveat emptor) and "If it sounds too good, it is."

I think those lawsuits have more to do with being overcharged than with health risks.

There's another radio ad with a guy singing happily about "GA going slow..." while the disclaimer talks about the possibility of a detached retina or blindness. At the end of the disclaimer -- without missing a beat -- the narrator says, "Don't delay!" and makes the close.

I suppose a lawyer for the defense could claim that the disclaimer wasn't sped up or muffled, but obviously the idea is to make sure that listeners are distracted by the music.

 

[TheBigA]

I think those lawsuits have more to do with being overcharged than with health risks.

That was the one example I linked. But there have been lots of lawsuits about the content of ad. We have several threads here about Balance of Nature. The issue there wasn't about being overcharged. There was no attempt on the part of the advertiser to mask what they were saying. Just that it was factually wrong. So they got sued and had to change their approach. They did, and are back on radio & TV.

You obviously recognize that what they're saying, and the way they're saying it, could cause health problems. So you don't buy their products. The problem is that if you aren't HARMED by their product, you lack standing to sue.

So the incoming secretary of HHS wants to ban ALL drug advertising.

What RFK Jr.’s Dislike for Drug TV Commercials Could Mean for the Ad Industry

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s stated desire to ban drug commercials from TV seems unlikely to become reality, according to advertising experts, but even pressure from Washington that falls short of an outright ban could lead to changes in the multibillion-dollar advertising sector.

www.yahoo.com

Kennedy pledged while running for president that he would issue an executive order kicking pharmaceutical commercials off television, arguing that Americans take too many prescription medicines and suggesting that the industry’s spending was influencing news coverage of the drug industry.

My view is he lacks the power to do this. It would take an act of congress, and it would be subject to challenges under the first amendment. But that's one way to handle it. The other is to simply be smart enough to stay away from dangerous drugs.

 

[PTBoardOp93]

So the incoming secretary of HHS wants to ban ALL drug advertising.

Which is obviously good policy, and would join the rest of the developed world.

I don't think it has much chance of being implemented due to the legal reasons you raise.

 

[wadio]

That was the one example I linked. But there have been lots of lawsuits about the content of ad. We have several threads here about Balance of Nature. The issue there wasn't about being overcharged. There was no attempt on the part of the advertiser to mask what they were saying. Just that it was factually wrong. So they got sued and had to change their approach. They did, and are back on radio & TV.

In the early days, Balance of Nature ads actually claimed the product could cure cancer, alzheimers, diabetes and other desease. That's why they were sued.

 

[radiofan2023]

What gets me is how they will say don't use the medicine if you're allergic to it. But how so you know until you've tried it???

Because if you’re allergic to one medicine in that class of drugs, you could be allergic to others: What Is a Drug Allergy?

 

[Larry]

So the incoming secretary of HHS wants to ban ALL drug advertising.

My view is he lacks the power to do this. It would take an act of congress, and it would be subject to challenges under the first amendment. But that's one way to handle it. The other is to simply be smart enough to stay away from dangerous drugs.

I agree he probably lacks the power to ban ads. But I think the FDA could impose new rules on prescription drug advertising such as expanded warnings & disclosures in tv advertising.

 

[DOGDOG]

Banning prescription drugs is ridiculous! If the government is is going to stick their nose further into how businesses are run, there's a lot more to dig into! How about the FAKE FEES charged by car dealers? How about BOGUS damage and cleaning charges from apartment complexes? How about infomercials disguised as interview programs for snake oil where you can get a "free" sample, just pay shipping when the "just pay shipping" BS is to capture your card number and start sending more stuff? There is nothing wrong with advertising of legitimate prescription medication. The large part of objection to such advertising is nothing more than ridiculous politics.

 

[PTBoardOp93]

Banning prescription drugs is ridiculous! If the government is is going to stick their nose further into how businesses are run, there's a lot more to dig into!

Mr. Kennedy is not tasked with leading any agency that regulates landlords or car dealers or infomercials. His nomination to lead Health & Human Services is the reason we're having this conversation.