Broad & Liberty: Scared by a TV ad? That’s the point.
By Jennifer Riley, Patients Come First Pennsylvania’s Executive Director
Last month, President Trump signed a memorandum directing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to crack down on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads. The order called on the agency to send cease-and-desist letters and warning notices to drug companies that fail to disclose risks or present unbalanced information about their products. Given that the administration framed it as a long-overdue move to protect consumers, the announcement drew attention across the health and policy landscape.
Protecting patients from harmful advertising is a reasonable goal. However, we are ignoring a much larger threat, one that’s flourishing here in Pennsylvania. Legal advertising by plaintiff lawyers and mass-tort firms has become one of the most pervasive and least regulated forces in consumer media. These ads often target the same FDA-approved medicines that drug companies are now being told to advertise more carefully. The difference is that while pharmaceutical ads are subject to extensive FDA oversight, lawyer ads are subject to virtually none. That double standard leaves patients confused and unprotected.
Over the past several years, Pennsylvania has become one of the most saturated legal advertising markets in the nation. In 2023 alone, law firms spent nearly $162 million on more than 1.4 million local ads across TV, radio, billboards, print, and digital outlets. More than half were for personal injury claims, and nearly $20 million targeted product liability suits tied to medical devices and prescription drugs. Outdoor advertising has surged by more than 60 percent since 2019, and radio spots have increased by more than 50 percent. From Allentown to Philadelphia, it’s impossible to drive a few miles without seeing a billboard asking, “Were you harmed by this product?” or “Have you been injured by this drug?”
At the same time, direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads are among the most tightly regulated forms of communication in American media. Every claim must be supported by evidence, and every side effect disclosed. Legal ads face no such guardrails. They are free to exaggerate risks, omit medical context, and encourage people to “call now” before consulting their doctors. Polling shows that 66 percent of Americans believe these ads make people unnecessarily fearful about safe medications, and nearly half say they might stop a prescribed treatment after seeing one. That fear can have real consequences for patients managing serious conditions.
Here in Pennsylvania, those consequences are not hypothetical. In more rural areas, where access to specialists is limited, a patient who sees a frightening commercial about a blood thinner may stop taking it altogether, unaware of the life-threatening danger of discontinuation. In Montgomery County, a parent might watch a social media video implying a link between ADHD medication and irreversible harm and decide, on the spot, to end their child’s therapy. Physicians increasingly report that patients arrive in their offices armed with screenshots of legal ads and demand explanations for risks that have been exaggerated or completely misrepresented, eroding the trust that sustains the doctor-patient relationship.
The impact goes beyond individual health decisions. The flood of fear-based legal advertising also shapes public perception and even the outcomes of litigation. Studies show that 90 percent of potential jurors say they would be concerned if they saw an ad claiming a product caused injuries, and 72 percent admit they would assume there is “probably truth to the claim” if a company is being sued. In Pennsylvania, which has become a national hub for mass-tort litigation, this matters deeply.
Read the full op-ed in Broad & Liberty here.