In re Pfizer, Inc.
Federal Trade Commission
81 F.T.C. 23 (1972)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Pfizer, Inc. (defendant) sold a product called Un-Burn. In advertisements, Pfizer claimed that Un-Burn eliminated pain from sunburned skin. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (plaintiff) filed a complaint, arguing that Pfizer’s advertisements constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). The FTC argued that Pfizer lacked a scientific basis to substantiate the advertisements’ claims about Un-Burn. The FTC argued that Pfizer’s advertisements misleadingly implied that the claims were supported by scientific studies or tests prior to the claims’ being made. Pfizer argued that the performance claims were substantiated in three ways. First, Pfizer’s medical analysts assured the marketing director that the claims were consistent with how topical anesthetics like Un-Burn worked. Second, the marketing director reviewed all available medical literature on the active ingredients. Lastly, the marketing director checked Pfizer’s advertising against competitive advertising of products with the same active ingredients. Prior to the case’s resolution, Pfizer discontinued the advertisements in question. The FTC entered an order against Pfizer, and Pfizer sought review by the full commission.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kirkpatrick, C.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
