•   •   •

The Difficult Case of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising David C. Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center 41 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review (forthcoming 2008) Download the Paper (PDF format) - September 3, 2007 Tell a colleague about it. Printing Tips: Select 'print as image' in the Acrobat print dialog if you have trouble printing. ABSTRACT: This article will appear in a symposium to pay tribute to Professor Steven H. Shiffrin, one of the leading First Amendment theorists of our time. The author was asked to focus on Professor Shiffrin’s contribution to the development of the commercial speech doctrine. To reflect on the wisdom of Professor Shiffrin’s refusal to rely on general First Amendment theories, the article focuses on the difficult First Amendment problem of regulating direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs. In his famous dissent in Virginia Pharmacy Board, then-Justice Rehnquist forecast that, as a consequence of the Court’s ruling, drug companies would soon advertise directly to consumers on television and other media. Justice Rehnquist argued that “there are sufficient dangers attending” the use of drugs “that they simply may not be promoted in the same manner as hair creams, deodorants, and toothpaste.” Today drugs are promoted in much the same way as other products. Drug companies devote forty percent of their advertising expenditures — over $4 billion per year — to DTC ads. The average American views as many as 16 hours of prescription drug ads per year, far exceeding the average time spent with a primary care physician. The question is whether proposals before Congress to limit or ban DTC advertising would pass constitutional muster. The article canvasses the arguments in some detail and concludes that legislation restricting DTC advertising to enable the FDA to assess the risks of a drug might withstand constitutional attack, but that an all-out ban on DTC advertising would not likely be sustained. The point of this discussion is to illustrate the complexity of commercial speech questions and to demonstrate that Professor Shiffrin was correct when he observed that “the commercial speech problem is in fact many problems,” and that “the small questions [it poses] will not go away.” SUGGESTED CITATION: David C. Vladeck, "The Difficult Case of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising" (September 3, 2007). Georgetown Law. Georgetown University: O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law Scholarship. Paper 3. http://lsr.nellco.org/georgetown/ois/papers/3 | REPOSITORY HOME  | SEARCH  | MY ACCOUNT  | NELLCO HOME | Powered by bepress.