Blog 2 - Regulations on Advertising

Advertising has been a part of our society for generations, and it is here to stay. Daily, we see ads for just about everything we use in our lives from toothpaste to clothing to soda. These advertisements show us our wide variety of options and expand our ability to make an informed purchasing decision that considers the benefits and downsides of competitors in the same market. As a consumer, I have seen first-hand how brand loyalty is formed through advertisements and marketing strategies. For example, I have been loyal to Apple for over a decade and a lot of that is due to their advertising featuring the benefits of their products and how they are better than the competition in areas that are important to me.

While the majority of products advertised are harmless, there is a category of products that need their advertisements monitored as the products have been proven to cause harm. There are two areas of self-monitoring that should be taken on by the company. First, they should provide compelling disclosure on their advertisement with any potential risk a product has. This disclosure needs to be included clearly and conspicuously where it is immediately visible to the consumer and therefore able to be considered before they make a purchase. The second area that should be self-monitored by the company is to avoid creating false or deceptive advertisements. For instance, a wrinkle cream company should not create side-by-side advertisements with edited images and different lighting conditions to help their product look like it had a larger impact.

While it would be nice if companies were ethical in advertising on their own every time, that is not the case. Government oversight has proven to be necessary to keep companies following these rules. Currently, the FTC monitors this, and any company that advertises with false, deceptive, or illegal advertising is held responsible. The four-part Central Hudson Test is used when creating government regulations for advertising harmful products. First, the speech in question must be eligible for protection. This could include advertisements for cigarettes as cigarettes ads can qualify for protection if they are not false or deceptive. Second, the government needs to have a compelling interest in regulating this speech. For the cigarette industry, there is a clear link between health issues and cigarettes creating a compelling interest. Third, there needs to be a close nexus between the regulation and the goal. For cigarettes, it was shown that kids were recognizing cigarette packaging from advertisements alone and the goal was to have fewer cigarette ads reach children. Lastly, the regulation needed to be narrowly tailored. For the cigarette industry, this applied because regulations were only being placed on television advertisements. By having regulations go through this test it ensures that companies are not having their first amendment right to commercial speech heavily restricted and only advertisements that can be proven to have negative effects on society can be restricted.

While it is good that speech in the United States is not heavily restricted, restrictions like this help to keep companies honest and give more power to the consumer to make informed decisions. If a product comes with a known health risk, as a consumer I believe that it is my right to be made aware.