Commonsense Controls Are Needed for Legal Advertising | Opinion

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.

Josh Hammer is Newsweek senior editor-at-large, host of “The Josh Hammer Show,” a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation, and author of Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West (Radius Book Group). Subscribe to “The Josh Hammer Report,” a Newsweek newsletter. X: @josh_hammer.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.