Commonsense Controls Are Needed for Legal Advertising

Commonsense Controls Are Needed for Legal Advertising 

Legal ads are booming—but without oversight, they risk harming patients and undermining public trust in justice.

Recently, President Trump directed the Department of Health and Human Services to tighten oversight of pharmaceutical advertising. That effort reflects a broader concern with consumer protection—ensuring that ads people see on their screens are accurate and responsible. But if policymakers truly want to get the best return for their efforts, there is another sector where consumer protection is urgently needed: legal services advertising.

For decades, trial lawyer ads have been a staple of late-night television. Today, they are also a growing presence online and across social media—platforms that thrive on clicks, outrage, and amplification. Big Tech companies happily cash in on these ads, which often masquerade as public health alerts or urgent consumer warnings. Unlike pharmaceutical advertising, which is tightly monitored by the Food and Drug Administration, this corner of the ad market operates with little meaningful oversight. The result is an environment where misleading messages flourish and vulnerable people are too often misled.

These ads typically tell viewers they "may qualify for compensation" even if they have never taken the underlying drug in question. They frequently use official-sounding language, government-style seals, or fear-driven imagery to create an impression of authority and urgency. For patients—particularly seniors—this can have real health consequences. Surveys have shown that lawsuit ads have frightened people away from taking prescribed medications for serious conditions ranging from diabetes to depression. Physicians have echoed these concerns, warning that their ability to provide proper care is undermined when patients make medical decisions based on misleading legal solicitations rather than professional health guidance.

Beyond the public health risks, there are serious implications for the legal system. Disingenuous advertising can lure in claimants with questionable or exaggerated claims, flooding the courts with frivolous cases. That clogs the judicial system, wastes limited resources, and delays justice for those with legitimate grievances. Because many of these campaigns are driven by volume, little effort is made to distinguish credible claims from opportunistic ones. In the end, real victims are forced to wait longer for relief, while public trust in judicial fairness continues to erode.

Legal advertising has grown into a billion-dollar enterprise—backed not only by contingency-fee attorneys but also by sophisticated financial interests betting on mass litigation. Americans have become increasingly aware of this dynamic. Recent polling now shows that more than 70 percent of voters support some type of reform. The intended objective is not to silence lawyers or deny a voice to real victims; it is to ensure that the pursuit of justice does not rely on misleading tactics that exploit fear and confusion.

There are concrete steps that lawmakers can take. State legislators and attorneys general should examine whether certain practices violate existing rules against unfair or deceptive trade practices. At the federal level, agencies like the Federal Trade Commission should be empowered to set clearer standards for truth in legal advertising. The FDA—already experienced in policing medical claims—can also play a role in coordinating oversight. Transparency requirements for law firms, lead generators, and financial backers would also help ensure that consumers understand who is behind the ads filling their screens.

There will always be a place for responsible legal advertising that informs the public and connects legitimately harmed individuals with appropriate legal representation. But that place must be defined by commonsense guardrails that protect both medical patients and the integrity of the courts. President Trump's effort to strengthen consumer protections in pharmaceutical advertising is a step in the right direction. Extending that same concern to legal advertising—where the risks are arguably greater and the current oversight regime much weaker—would be an even greater step toward restoring trust in both the marketplace and the justice system.

没有底线的法律性广告，正在透支公众信任｜新闻周刊

近期，特朗普总统指示美国卫生与公众服务部加强对药品广告的监管。这项举措反映出政府在消费者保护领域的更广泛关切——确保公众在各类屏幕上看到的广告内容真实准确、合规负责。然而，如果决策者真的希望监管行动发挥最大效用，还应关注另一个同样急需强化消费者保护的领域：法律服务广告。

数十年来，诉讼律师广告一直是深夜电视节目的固定内容。如今，这类广告已迅速蔓延至网络与社交媒体——这些以点击量、情绪煽动和内容传播为驱动的平台。大型科技公司也乐于从中赚取可观收益，这些广告常常伪装成公共健康提示或紧急消费警告。然而，与受美国食品药品监督管理局严格监管的药品广告不同，法律服务广告几乎处于无人监管的状态。结果就是形成了一个误导信息泛滥的环境，许多弱势群体因此频频受骗。

这类广告通常宣称，即使观众从未服用过所提及的药物，也“可能符合赔偿条件”。广告中常用带有官方口吻的语言、类政府机构的印章，或渲染恐慌情绪的画面，营造出权威性与紧迫感。对患者而言——尤其是老年人——这样的宣传可能带来切实的健康风险。调查表明，许多患者因受到这类诉讼广告的惊吓，而停止服用医生为糖尿病、抑郁症等严重疾病开具的处方药。医生也表达了类似的担忧，警告称，当患者依据误导性的法律广告而非专业的医疗建议做出决策时，医生提供妥善治疗的能力也将因此受到限制。

除了对公共健康构成风险外，这类广告还对司法体系造成了严重冲击。虚假误导的宣传可能诱使部分原告提出可疑或夸大的索赔，使法院充斥着大量无理的案件。这不仅导致司法系统拥堵、浪费有限资源，也使真正有正当诉求的人不得不延迟获得公正。由于这些宣传活动往往靠案件数量驱动盈利，因此操盘者很少会费力去甄别哪些申诉具有可信性，哪些只是投机之举。最终结果是，真正的受害者不得不等待更久，而公众对司法公正的信任也在此过程中持续流失。

如今，法律广告已经发展成一个价值数十亿美元的庞大产业——其背后不仅有按胜诉提成的律师，还包括那些押注于大规模诉讼的精明金融资本。美国公众对这种运作模式的认知正在不断加深。最新民调显示，超过70%的选民支持进行某种形式的改革。改革的真正目的并不是压制律师发声，或是剥夺真正受害者的维权渠道；而是要确保人们在寻求司法公正时，不再依赖那些利用恐惧和混乱来误导公众的手段。

立法者可以采取一些切实可行的举措。各州的议员和司法部长应当审查某些广告做法，确认其是否违反了现行法律对不公平或欺骗性商业行为的禁令。在联邦层面，应赋予联邦贸易委员会（FTC）等机构更多权限，以制定更明确的法律广告真实性标准。而在医疗宣传监管方面经验丰富的美国食品药品监督管理局（FDA），也可在协调监管工作中发挥作用。此外，针对律师事务所、客户线索供应商以及资金支持者设立信息披露要求，将有助于确保消费者了解那些充斥其屏幕广告背后的操盘者。

合规、负责任的法律广告始终具备其合理存在的价值，既能够向公众普及法律知识，也能帮助真正受到伤害的人找到合适的法律代理。但这类广告的存在，必须建立在合理规范之上，以同时保障患者的安全和司法体系的完整性。特朗普为强化药品广告领域的消费者保护所采取的举措，是朝正确方向迈出的一步。但如果政府能将同样的关注延伸至法律广告领域——一个风险可能更高、监管却明显更薄弱的领域——将是在重建市场和司法体系信任方面更为关键的一步。