Thompson Medical Company, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
791 F.2d 189 (1987)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Thompson Medical Company, Inc. (Thompson) (defendant) sold a pain reliever cream called Aspercreme. Aspercreme was marketed to relieve arthritic pain. Thompson’s advertising featured references to aspirin. According to Thompson’s advertising, Aspercreme provided the “strong relief of aspirin” and “concentrate[d] the relief of aspirin.” Aspercreme did not contain aspirin, but rather contained a chemical variant of aspirin called trolamine salicylate. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Thompson, arguing that Thompson had no scientific basis for Aspercreme’s efficacy and that Aspercreme did not contain aspirin. The FTC argued that Thompson misleadingly represented Aspercreme to contain a more effective version of aspirin. The administrative-law judge found Thompson liable, and the full commission affirmed that result. The FTC entered a final order, prohibiting Thompson from representing that Aspercreme was as effective or more effective than any other product, unless the claim was supported by two adequate and well-controlled scientific studies. Thompson petitioned for review of the FTC’s final order, arguing that two studies should not be necessary to Thompson’s representation that Aspercreme is an effective reliever of arthritic pain.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mikva, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
