{"id":49,"date":"2015-06-01T18:03:54","date_gmt":"2015-06-01T18:03:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=49"},"modified":"2023-10-02T16:49:22","modified_gmt":"2023-10-02T16:49:22","slug":"advertising","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/advertising\/","title":{"rendered":"ADVERTISING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"attachment_5998\" style=\"width: 544px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Bas_relief_at_the_Federal_Trade_Commission_600_Pennsylvania_Ave._NW_Washington_D.C_LCCN2010641735.tif.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-5998\" class=\" wp-image-5998\" src=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Bas_relief_at_the_Federal_Trade_Commission_600_Pennsylvania_Ave._NW_Washington_D.C_LCCN2010641735.tif-300x140.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"534\" height=\"249\" srcset=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Bas_relief_at_the_Federal_Trade_Commission_600_Pennsylvania_Ave._NW_Washington_D.C_LCCN2010641735.tif-300x140.jpg 300w, https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Bas_relief_at_the_Federal_Trade_Commission_600_Pennsylvania_Ave._NW_Washington_D.C_LCCN2010641735.tif.jpg 640w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 534px) 100vw, 534px\" \/><\/a><p id=\"caption-attachment-5998\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Federal Trade Commission building, George F. Landegger Collection, Library of Congress.<\/p><\/div>\n<p><strong>Outline of advertising law section:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">7.1 Introduction (this page)\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law?page_id=730\">7.2 History of US advertising regulation<\/a> in the 20th century\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law?page_id=115\">7.3 Advertising case law\u00a0<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law?page_id=483\">7.4 Current advertising regulation<\/a>:<\/span>\n<ol>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"line-height: 1.7;\">US a<\/span><span style=\"line-height: 1.7;\">gencies with jurisdiction over advertising (FTC, FDA, USDA, SEC)\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Major laws regulating advertising<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">UK agencies with jurisdiction over advertising\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/banned-commercials\/\">7.5 Deceptive advertising<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/dopesick\/\">7.6 FDA and Dopesick\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/specialadregsliquor\/\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">7.7 Alcohol ads <\/span><\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/specialadregstobacco\/\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">7.8 Tobacco ads\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/specialadregschildren\/\">7.9 Children&#8217;s ads\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/publicmedia\/\">7.10 Public media ads<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/signadvert\/\">7.11 Signage<\/a><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law?page_id=626\">7,12 Corporate speech\u00a0<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/intl-ad-regulation\/\">7.13 International Ads<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright wp-image-5990 size-medium\" style=\"font-family: inherit;\" src=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/US_timeline._Opioid_deaths-300x225.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\" srcset=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/US_timeline._Opioid_deaths-300x225.png 300w, https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/US_timeline._Opioid_deaths.png 432w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><strong>WHAT&#8217;S AT STAKE <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>When Purdue Phrama\u00a0 company launched OxyContin<\/strong> in 1996, ads and sales representatives told doctors that it was safe for back aches, knee pain and other common conditions.\u00a0 The claimed, falsely, \u00a0that it was less addictive than other prescription opi<span style=\"font-family: inherit; color: #444444;\">oids.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The result has been an epidemic of opioid abuse and death.\u00a0 From 1999-2022, over 725,000 people died from overdosing on opioids.<\/p>\n<p>The Food and Drug Administration is supposed to regulate\u00a0 advertising for medicine with the rigor that would avoid needless deaths from these helpful but potentially lethal\u00a0 products.\u00a0 Yet,<em> in one of the worst lapses of regulatory oversight in history, the FDA\u2019s regulation of Purdue Pharma\u2018s OxyContin did not control\u00a0 false and malicious advertising.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<p>FDA <a href=\"https:\/\/journalofethics.ama-assn.org\/article\/how-fda-failures-contributed-opioid-crisis\/2020-08\">came under scathing criticism<\/a> for allowing Purdue Pharma to flood the market with lethal pain pills and lie about their non-addictive qualities.\u00a0 According to the American Medical Association&#8217;s Journal of Ethics:\u00a0 \u00a0&#8220;The fact that opioid manufacturers disseminated false claims regarding the risks and benefits of opioids for the past 25 years points to a dereliction of duty by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)\u2014the federal agency charged with regulating pharmaceutical companies.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>See <a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/dopesick\/\">Section 7.6, FDA and Dopesick\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong><strong>Introduction <\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The law of advertising and public relations involves the entire spectrum of communications law, from fully protected speech to highly regulated speech, depending on the content and venue. \u00a0 The law has also undergone a full arc of historical change over the 20th century, from absolutely unregulated, to fully regulated and unprotected, to (most recently) partly regulated and partly protected. \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>General issues\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">At the beginning of the 20th century, advertising was almost entirely unregulated &#8212; so much so\u00a0 that ads for quack cancer cures, cocaine tonics and opium-based syrups were perfectly legal.\u00a0 &#8220;Muckraking&#8221; journalism campaigns against &#8220;patent medicines&#8221; led to the creation of laws regulating foods, drugs and advertising in the 1906 &#8211; 1914 Progressive era.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Courts upheld full advertising regulation in the early to mid-20th century on the &#8220;hierarchy of speech&#8217; theory, viewing political speech as fully protected by the First Amendment, commercial speech on a second tier, and indecency and obscenity as more or less unprotected (although not necessarily illegal).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">This hierarchy began changing with issue-oriented advertising in the 1960s, especially with the New York Times v Sullivan case in 1964.\u00a0 Then, in the 1970s, courts heard cases involving generic drug advertising, abortion, legal services and energy conservation and often found that there were political dimensions\u00a0 within the commercial proposition. For example, the idea that seniors had the political right to learn about generic medicine (Virginia Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Consumers Council, 1976) had a political as well as commercial dimension.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">So gradually, between 1964 and the 1990s, the theory of a First Amendment hierarchy of protected speech began to erode. \u00a0Advertising in most cases was as well protected as political speech, since in many cases it did have a political dimension.\u00a0 \u00a0This was a trend towards deregulation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>Special areas of regulation\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deregulation might have been advisable in some general product areas, but in <span style=\"color: #000000;\">special advertising areas,\u00a0 such as medicine, liquor, tobacco,\u00a0 children&#8217;s advertising,\u00a0 and ads for financial services,\u00a0 the trend towards deregulation has been questioned and in some cases reversed.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p>T<span style=\"color: #000000;\">he Federal Trade Commission (FTC); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have all found that high costs and sometimes loss of life have followed\u00a0 deregulation in some areas of federal responsibility.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"left\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Outline of advertising law section: 7.1 Introduction (this page)\u00a0 7.2 History of US advertising regulation in the 20th century\u00a0 7.3 Advertising case law\u00a0 7.4 Current advertising regulation: US agencies with jurisdiction over advertising (FTC, FDA, USDA, SEC)\u00a0 Major laws regulating &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/advertising\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6,"parent":0,"menu_order":12,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-49","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/49","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/49\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":614,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/49\/revisions\/614"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}