* Make FDA approval double blind. Can't bribe who you can't see.
* Before starting a study, if you want to include it with a future application you need to register it. All registered studies need to be included with an application. Can't cherry pick studies.
* You may only use approved claims stated in the application in marketing or product descriptions. (which I thought was already the case)
False, there are three (western?) countries that allow it: USA, New Zealand, and Brazil [1]. Here in NZ, there are not very many ads on TV for prescription mediation. "Ask your doctor" is a common phrase, but I get the impression that the large majority of advertised drugs are non-prescription. (But I watch little TV and I certainly avoid watching TV ads)
The hilarious thing is that the US has the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act through which we can punish multinationals - usually BigPharma - for bribing doctors in other countries, where direct-to-customer advertising is prohibited.
I've seen ads (either in the US or UK) that didn't market drugs directly, didn't name any brands or anything, but was basically "If you have erectile dysfunction, go see your doctor, there may be something for you".
That sort of ad seems common for conditions they're trying to "popularize", like "restless legs syndrome", especially when the drug they're selling isn't approved for that use. Hypochondriacs go to the "official site" and learn from sockpuppets what drugs to pester their physicians about.
You can almost certainly restrict it on public broadcast TV, which would be a good start. The FCC has pretty broad powers to regulate broadcast TV and radio compared to other kinds of speech. For example:
Legally, it's not really an issue. Commercial speech can be broadly regulated by Congress.
Free Speech doesn't really factor into a huge portion of what you see from the FDA, FTC, SEC, CFPB, and hundreds of state-level organs focused on regulating deceptive business practices.
What about it? Not all speech is protected and there is a case to be made of the harm such speech poses. This is why we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
The bar for prior restraint based on content is pretty high. I believe it's "clear and present danger". You're likely to have a difficult time making the case that ads for allergy medications present a clear and present danger.
The bar for prior restraint on public airwaves is much lower. We'd be much better off if drug marketing were relegated to the shady corners of the internet for advertising.
> Before starting a study, if you want to include it with a future application you need to register it. All registered studies need to be included with an application. Can't cherry pick studies.
* Make FDA approval double blind. Can't bribe who you can't see.
* Before starting a study, if you want to include it with a future application you need to register it. All registered studies need to be included with an application. Can't cherry pick studies.
* You may only use approved claims stated in the application in marketing or product descriptions. (which I thought was already the case)