The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates "truth in advertising." But what truth actually means is a bit murky and open to interpretation. If the ad makes definitive claims like, "Nine out of 10 dentists surveyed...," then there needs to be evidence to back that up. A common ad disclaimer you'll see for weight loss drugs is mandatory and regulated heavily by the FTC -- "in conjunction with diet and regular exercise...." One key rule the FTC mandates is that the disclaimer is made in the same manner as the claim. That's why you never see diet pill commercials where a human states that the product will cause you to lose weight. In that case, there would need to be a voice-over stating that it must be combined with diet and exercise, which would ruin the illusion. If the claim is made in print, as they always are with weight-loss drugs, the disclaimer can be made in print.
Disclaimers can go a long way toward stretching the truth of the ad, but they can never correct statements that are actually false or inaccurate. The fine-print disclaimer is basically a loophole. After the advertiser has made the claim, there's very little chance that a fine-print disclaimer can change anything about what the viewer just saw. The claim is already imbedded in the mind of the audience, and there's really no way to strike it from the record. Most of the fine print disclaimers are too small and not onscreen long enough to read anyway. The FTC states that fine-print disclaimers are "not likely to be adequate." But the fact that most ad claims simply aren't worth the time and money to pursue action against keeps them on your TV screen. If the commercial doesn't concern a consumer's health or safety, it's not likely to get the attention of the FTC.
There's another large area of commercial advertising that's regulated, and very strictly, by a different body. These are the political ads you see slinging mud across your TV screen each election year, and they're overseen by the Federal Election Commission (FEC.) The FEC has strict guidelines as to when disclaimers are necessary, exactly what they need to convey and precisely how they're delivered.
One of the main disclaimers political ads are required to convey is who paid for the commercial. You've heard these disclaimers countless times -- "Paid for by the committee to elect Joe Smith." If the candidate's campaign is the one who paid for the ad, it doesn't require a disclaimer, but the subject matter does need an endorsement from the actual candidate. In this case, the end of the commercial needs one of two things:
- A full-screen shot of the candidate making a statement that he "approved this message"
- A voice-over and image of the candidate that occupies at least 80 percent of the vertical screen height
In addition to either one of these disclaimers, there also must be a written disclaimer added to the end that clearly displays the message has been approved. The FEC gets a bit more specific than the FTC when it comes to their definition of clearly. It mandates a reasonable degree of color contrast between the background of the ad and the disclaimer's lettering for a period of no less than four seconds. Failure to comply with these rules can result in penalties from the FEC, most notably not allowing candidates to run ads for the cut rate that networks allow during campaign season. This can put a serious dent in the funds of a candidate, so campaigns are quick to comply.
Related HowStuffWorks Articles
More Great Links
- "Dietary Supplements: An Advertising Guide for Industry." Federal Trade Commission. 2008.http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus09.shtm
- "Political Advertising Disclaimers: Whose Ad Is It Anyway?" wcsr.com. 2008. http://www.wcsr.com/resources/pdfs/PL_PoliticalAdvertisingDisclaimers.pdf
- "The Bulova Story." bulova.com. 2008. http://www.bulova.com/about/about.aspx
- Amrine, Kimberly S. "Is there a minimum font size requirement for disclaimers in advertising?" askthelegalpro.com. 2008. http://www.askthelegalpro.com/alp/litigationarchive/PublicationDetail.aspx?pubShortId=831
- Brown, Amy. "The Risks of False Advertising Disclaimers Keep Violations at Bay." proffesionaldoordealer.com. 2008. http://www.professionaldoordealer.com/articles/legal/668_481feat4.html
- Cooper, Charles M. "Truth in Advertising?" americasbestcompanies.com. July/August 2008.http://www.americasbestcompanies.com/magazine/articles/truth-in-advertising.aspx
- Elliot, Stuart. "F.D.A. Criticizes Viagra Ads, Prompting Pfizer to Halt Them." The New York Times. Nov. 16, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/16/business/media/16viagra.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
- Sivaraman, Aarthi. "Super Bowl 30-second ads to cost $3 mln in 2009: report." Reuters. May 6, 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN0644484220080506