United States: DC Circuit Court Holds That Two Studies Are Not Required For Certain Advertising Claims

Last Updated: February 20 2015
Article by Daniel S. Blynn, Samuel D. Boro and Randal M. Shaheen

On January 30, 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued its decision in POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC.1 The court generally affirmed the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC or Commission) January 2013 findings that many of POM's advertisements made misleading or false claims about POM's pomegranate juice and supplement products. Notably, however, the court rejected the FTC's position that advertising claims about a product's effects on disease prevention and treatment always require at least two gold-standard "randomized and controlled human clinical trials" (RCTs). As explained below, the denial of the blanket requirement of two RCTs will have several important implications for advertisers.

The Commission's January 2013 Findings

In January 2013, the Commission upheld an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision that POM deceptively advertised its products and did not have adequate support for disease prevention and treatment claims. The POM advertisements at issue represented that the products treated or prevented heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction. The ALJ explained that the studies POM cited in its advertisements contained numerous perceived deficiencies, such as small sample sizes, lacks of control groups, and/or statistically insignificant results. Moreover, POM failed to disclose to consumers that, for some of the advertised claims, other studies had shown no effect on the studied diseases.

The Commission went beyond the ALJ's decision and found that POM made deceptive claims in 36 advertisements, and issued an injunction prohibiting POM from making any claim that a food, drug, or dietary supplement is "effective in diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of any disease," unless the claim is supported by two RCTs.

The DC Circuit Affirms the FTC's Conclusion that POM's Advertising Claims Were Deceptive, But Rejects the Two-Study Standard

On appeal, the DC Circuit affirmed the FTC's conclusion that POM's advertising claims were deceptive, but rejected the two RCT standard. The FTC took issue with POM's selective use of study results in its advertising. In particular, the Commission held that POM cherry-picked results from the most favorable studies and gave no indication that there had been contrary results reached in other studies.

Both on appeal and at the Commission POM argued that its claims actually were qualified health claims for which a two RCT standard was certainly inappropriate. The DC Circuit affirmed the Commission's rejection of this defense, finding that, although the ads referred to the studies as "preliminary" or "promising," the overall context of the ad conveyed a more positive spin to the studies rather than merely providing an objective disclaimer. Both the Commission and the DC Circuit suggested that a disclaimer such as "evidence in support of this claim is inconclusive" would have been a more effective, albeit less marketing friendly, disclaimer. However, this narrow approach as to what language sufficiently qualifies a health claim later was used against the Commission. The DC Circuit rejected the Commission's argument that the two RCT standard was not unduly burdensome because it only applied to "unqualified claims," finding only that claims using words like "inconclusive" or "additional research is necessary" likely would pass muster as unqualified.

With respect to the Commission's two-RCT requirement, POM argued that in certain situations, practical, ethical, and economic constraints and prohibitive cost burdens made it unfeasible to conduct RCTs on certain food products. The court was unpersuaded. Rather, the court emphasized that the need for RCTs is driven by the particular claim made, so "if the cost of an RCT proves prohibitive, petitioners can choose to specify a lower level of substantiation for their claims."

The court accepted the notion that RCTs likely would be necessary to support a disease reduction or treatment claim, but rejected the blanket requirement of two RCTs on several grounds. First, the court rejected the FTC's reliance on precedent and prior consent orders. Second, the court rejected the two-RCT standard based on a Central Hudson-First Amendment commercial speech analysis.

More specifically, the FTC argued that precedent dictated the two-RCT standard, but the court found that the Commission's reliance on In re Thompson Medical Co.2 was misplaced. In Thompson Medical, two RCTs were warranted to substantiate claims involving the efficacy of over-the-counter painkillers, but the reasoning for this requirement depended on the specific nature of the product and the claims made. The FTC also argued that the two-RCT standard had been applied in previous consent orders. 3 The court rejected the Commission's reliance on these as well because the consent orders were not litigated matters and the orders were limited to specific disease claims rather than all disease claims. Moreover, many other consent orders regarding disease claims only required "competent and reliable scientific evidence" rather than a rigid two-RCT standard to substantiate disease claims.

The court noted, however, that two RCTs may be required in some circumstances depending on the product and the specific claim made. For example, the FTC may require RCT substantiation as a forward-looking remedy to act as a corrective to past deceptive claims made without RCT substantiation, so long as the requirement of RCTs for future claims is "tightly tethered to the goal of preventing deception." While an RCT may be required, a blanket requirement for two RCTs is too broad under a Central Hudson commercial speech analysis. The FTC still bears the burden to demonstrate a "reasonable fit" between the means chosen and the government interest pursued. Indeed, the court underscored that:

It of course is true that, all else being equal, two RCTs would provide more reliable scientific evidence than one RCT, affording added assurance against misleading claims. It is equally true that three RCTs would provide more certainty than two, and four would yield more certainty still.

In light of this, the court held that prior precedent goes against the FTC's position advocating two RCTs, and, instead, demonstrates that "two-RCT remedial provisions are only selectively imposed in specific circumstances based on particular concerns." Regarding POM's advertisements, the court upheld the FTC's order requiring the disease claims to be substantiated by at least one RCT, but the blanket two-RCT requirement for all disease-related claims was held to be unjustified.

Key Takeaways for Advertisers

The DC Circuit's decision provides several lessons for advertisers:

  • Courts generally will give deference to the FTC to interpret the claims made by advertisements. This deference includes FTC interpretations of qualifying language such as "promising" or "preliminary." In POM Wonderful, the FTC determined that these qualifiers did not sufficiently convey the limitations of the studies performed, and the court saw no reason to reject this decision. Instead the court noted that such disclaimers will have to use unambiguous terms, such as "inconclusive" or "more research needed."
  • When making disease claims, an advertiser does not necessarily have to conduct two RCTs to substantiate its claims. Rather, the relevant analysis for the appropriateness of a disease claim is the "total body of the evidence." In some situations, even a clinical trial combined with observational research may be sufficient for a disease claim. Advertisers should consider the nature of the product and the specific advertising claims being made when determining what kind of testing will be necessary to substantiate the claims.
  • Going forward, the FTC will not be able to mandate two-RCT substantiation in all situations, but its power to dictate other substantiation remedies has not been significantly diminished. For disease-related claims, advertisers should anticipate the need for RCT substantiation, or something very close to that. The cost of substantiation is lowered by the rejection of the two-RCT requirement, but claims must still be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence at the time they are made. The FTC likely will take the DC Circuit's decision into consideration in its next enforcement actions. With the courts' giving great deference to the FTC's determinations, advertisers still need to weigh their claims carefully.


1. -- F.3d --, No. 13-1060, 2015 WL 394093 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 30, 2015).

2. 104 F.T.C. 648 (1984).

3. See, e.g., In re L'Occitane, Inc., No. C-4445, 2014 WL 1493613 (FTC Mar. 27, 2014); In re Dannon Co., Inc., No. C-4313, 2011 WL 479884 (FTC Jan. 31, 2011); In re Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc., No. C-4312, 2011 WL 188928 (FTC Jan. 12, 2011).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions