Anjali Patel

Associate Editor

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2028

We are all familiar with drug advertisements on TV: someone has a problem, the drug easily solves it, and a jingle slowly spills out in the background as the commercial fades away. As it fades, an extensive list of the drug’s side effects is listed in rapid-fire succession, followed by a note suggesting you ask your doctor and visit the drug’s website for more information. That closing line exists because of a provision in the FDA’s prescription drug advertising regulations (the “Adequate Provision”), which allows broadcast advertisements to direct viewers to another source for the full risk information instead of requiring the information be included in the ad itself.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced plans to eliminate the Adequate Provision for broadcast prescription drug advertising, which would require advertisements to state a drug’s full risk summary. While viewers deserve to be informed on the risks associated with prescription drugs, eliminating the Adequate Provision outright is too blunt. Instead, a short, standardized on-screen disclosure would best serve viewers.

From Fine Print to Fast Talk: How the Adequate Provision Took Over TV

The FDA provides different standards for print and broadcast advertisements. Print advertisements need to provide a brief summary of the side effects and contraindications listed on the drug’s approved labeling, while broadcast advertisements merely require stating the drug’s major risks. Additionally, a broadcast advertisement can skip the brief summary if it satisfies the Adequate Provision by giving viewers a way to get the full labeling.

The Adequate Provision has been in the FDA’s regulations since 1969, but for years, companies were unsure what type of disclosure was required. Without clear guidance, companies worried they would have to include the full summary of side effects in their advertisements, making advertisements impractical for the pharmaceutical industry. That changed in 1997, when the FDA issued guidance spelling out how to satisfy the Adequate Provision; the guidance was eventually finalized in 1999. The guidance  instructed pharmaceutical companies to direct viewers to a toll-free number, a printed advertisement, a website, or a health care professional instead of listing every side effect in a commercial. As a result, broadcast direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertisements became far more common.

The push to eliminate the FDA’s long standing guidance on the Adequate Provision started on September 9, 2025. That day, a presidential memorandum directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA to increase the amount of risk information provided in DTC advertisements and more strictly enforce noncompliance. The agencies proposed three initiatives in response to the memorandum: new regulations to rescind the Adequate Provision, heightened enforcement, and an emphasis on regulating social media ads. More rigorous enforcement has already taken place. The FDA’s Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) issued more than 40 untitled letters across 2025 and the first half of 2026, up from only five in 2024. The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising”, is listed in the 2026 Unified Agenda, with a notice of proposed rulemaking expected in December 2026.

Closing a loophole or banning the ad?

The HHS calls the Adequate Provision a loophole, stating the current structure allows companies to operate under pre-1997 regulations. Many lawyers working in this area disagree. The FDA Law Blog points out that broadcast ads already have to be fairly balanced through the major statement, and the Adequate Provision only tells viewers where to find the full information. The law firm King & Spalding adds that calling it a loophole suggests companies have been dodging the rules, when in reality, the FDA has allowed the Adequate Provision to serve as one of two legal frameworks to give consumers risk information for decades. The alternative is a full summary of the risks related to the drug, which is difficult to fit into a 30 or 60 second ad spot. This proposed rule could effectively end broadcast DTC drug advertising.

This is where the First Amendment comes in. Advertising is a form of commercial speech, so the proposed rule would more than likely have to pass the test established in Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission. Under this test, the government has to show it is pursuing a substantial interest and that any restriction on speech is not more extensive than necessary to serve it. In Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, the Supreme Court applied the Central Hudson test to strike down limits on advertising compounded drugs, reasoning that the government could have met its goal with fewer restrictions on the companies’ speech.

The same logic would put pressure on the FDA if it enacts its proposed rule. Foley Hoag expects legal challenges and sees tension between the proposed rule and the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, which wrote into the current statute the major statement framework for broadcast ads.

A shorter disclosure would get the job done

The FDA’s goal is to make sure people are aware of all the risks associated with a product while watching an ad. A full brief summary is one way to do that but certainly not the only one. Although it is still unclear whether the FDA will require the same brief summary used in print advertisements or create a modified standard for broadcast ads, it should adopt the latter. This would meet the HHS’s risk transparency goals while also giving courts a less restrictive alternative, so the FDA would not have to explain at length why a full brief summary is necessary. The FDA should create a modified, short, standardized risk summary that appears on screen and is read aloud, alongside the existing directions to look into the full risk summary.

The rapid-fire list of side effects at the end of a drug ad is not the best way to inform viewers, but scrapping the Adequate Provision is not the answer either. A short, standardized disclosure, shown on screen and read aloud, would fix the problem without taking drug ads off television.