Bristol-Myers Co. v. F.T.C.
| Citation | 738 F.2d 554 |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 1053,BRISTOL-MYERS,1053 |
| Parties | 1984-2 Trade Cases 66,082 COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. ocket 83-4167. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Kenneth A. Plevan, New York City (Miriam L. Siroky, Elaine D. Ziff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City, Gilbert H. Weil, Gerald Guttman, Jay S. Davis, Weil, Guttman, Davis & Malkin, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.
Melvin H. Orlans, Atty., F.T.C., Washington, D.C. (John H. Carley, Gen. Counsel, Howard E. Shapiro, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Ernest J. Isenstadt, Asst. Gen. Counsel, F.T.C., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for respondent.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, and FRIENDLY and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
Bristol-Myers Company (Bristol) petitions for review of an order of the Federal Trade Commission (the Commission or FTC) made in respect to the advertising by Bristol of its well-known analgesics, Bufferin and Excedrin. The order represents over ten years of agency work formally commencing with the filing of complaints on February 23, 1973 by the Commission against Bristol and its advertising agencies, Ted Bates & Co., Inc. and Young & Rubicam, Inc., concerning alleged violations of sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 45 and 52 (1982). On the same day the Commission also filed complaints challenging the advertising of certain competing non-prescription internal analgesic products, including Anacin (In re American Home Products Corp., 98 F.T.C. 136, 362 (1981), enforced as modified, American Home Products Corp. v. FTC, 695 F.2d 681 (3d Cir.1983) (AHP ) 1), and Bayer Aspirin (In re Sterling Drug, Inc., No. 8919 (July 5, 1983), appeal pending, No. 83-7700 (9th Cir. filed Jan. 30, 1984)). We have considered each of Bristol's claims as to the remedial order and deny the petition for review and grant enforcement.
The Commission's decision upheld findings by its Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that Bristol had engaged in a variety of deceptive practices in advertising Excedrin and Bufferin from 1960 to 1973, but dismissed the complaint allegations concerning Excedrin PM because it found that Bristol had not made the challenged claims as to that product. In concluding that Bristol and its advertising agencies had deceptively advertised Excedrin and Bufferin, the Commission found that Bristol had misrepresented that the analgesic superiority of Excedrin and Bufferin over competing products was scientifically proved, or "established," by the artful use of certain phrases such as "scientific tests" and "medically endorsed," as well as by the use of visual images. Bristol was found to have made seven false and deceptive claims of this nature, concerning both the efficacy and the freedom-from-side-effects of its non-prescription internal analgesic products. 2 Part I of the Order prohibits Bristol from making comparative establishment claims asserting the superior effectiveness or freedom-from-side-effects of its OTC internal analgesics without proof consisting of "two or more adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations" conducted in accordance with procedures set forth in detail in the Order.
In addition the Commission found that Bristol had claimed, without a reasonable basis, that both Bufferin, which is a form of buffered asprin, and Excedrin, a combination of aspirin, salicylamide, acetaminophen and caffeine, relieved tension and that physicians recommend Bufferin more frequently than they recommend any other OTC internal analgesic. Finding that such unsubstantiated claims were deceptive, the Commission in Part II of its Order requires Bristol not to make "any therapeutic performance or freedom-from-side-effects claim" for any OTC internal analgesic unless it has a "reasonable basis for making that claim [consisting of] competent and reliable scientific evidence supporting that claim." Part II, then, requires that all claims of this type be reasonable, while Part I imposes more rigorous requirements on similar comparative establishment claims.
The Commission also found that Bristol deceptively advertised that its products contained "unusual" or "special" ingredients even though the very same ingredients are commonly used in other OTC drug products intended for the same use or uses as the product advertised. These "special ingredient" claims were also found to have been made so as to conceal the fact that Bufferin and Excedrin were aspirin based, the deception operating by way of emphasis upon the unspecified analgesic ingredient. Part IIIA of the Order prohibits special ingredient advertising when the ingredient referred to is commonly used in other products for the same purpose. Noting that Bristol had previously signed stipulations in respect to special ingredient claims for a cold remedy and a facial cream, this part of the Order was applied across the board to all Bristol OTC products and not merely to OTC internal analgesics.
The Commission further found that Bristol falsely represented that doctors recommend Bufferin more than any other OTC internal analgesic. Part IIIB of the Order prohibits Bristol from representing "that any group, body or organization endorses or recommends [the use of a Bristol OTC drug] unless at the time such statement or representation is made, respondent has a reasonable basis for such statement or representation." This part of the Order was applied to all Bristol OTC drug products in the light of an earlier history of similar "doctors recommend" claims made by Bristol in connection with other products. See In re Bristol-Myers Co., 46 F.T.C. 162, 170 (1949) (order), aff'd, 185 F.2d 58 (4th Cir.1950); 24 F.T.C. 1554 (1937) (stipulation).
On the other hand, the Commission declined to accept complaint counsel's recommendation that Bristol be required to run corrective advertising. See Warner-Lambert Co. v. FTC, 562 F.2d 749, 756-59 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 950, 98 S.Ct. 1576, 55 L.Ed.2d 800 (1978). It also declined to uphold the ALJ insofar as his order would have applied to the labelling of Bristol products as well as to Bristol's advertising, in the light of the FTC's liaison agreement with the FDA as set forth in AHP, 98 F.T.C. at 411.
Bristol makes a variety of objections to all three parts of the Order. As to Part I, Bristol contends that it should apply only to effectiveness claims, and that it should permit reliance on FDA studies. Part II is alleged to be unduly and unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and is also said to rely on an "advertising substantiation" doctrine which violates the First Amendment. Part III is also allegedly overbroad. Moreover Part IIIA is said not to be reasonably related to any violation actually found by the FTC, and Part IIIB based upon fact-finding which is clearly erroneous. 3
A. Part I's applicability to freedom-from-side-effects claims. Bristol argues that the FTC had no basis for requiring two adequate, well-controlled clinical studies for freedom-from-side-effects comparative claims, so that Part I of the Order should be modified to apply solely to effectiveness claims. The Commission is said to have relied in formulating the two studies requirement upon FDA regulations which themselves distinguish between effectiveness claims, the validity of which should be proved by "controlled clinical investigations," and safety claims, proof of which "shall consist of adequate tests by methods reasonably applicable...." 21 C.F.R. Sec. 330.10(a)(4)(i) (safety), (ii) (effectiveness) (1983). The Commission is also said to have erred in stating that its clinical study requirement is consistent with the 1962 amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 355(d) (1982). Under that statute, Bristol states, the "substantial evidence standard" applies only to product effectiveness claims and does not apply to safety claims. See E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Weinberger, 483 F.2d 1382, 1385 (3d Cir.1973). And pointing to the Commission's own opinion in AHP, Bristol notes that no freedom-from-side-effects claims were held subject to the two well-controlled clinical studies requirement in AHP. This is so because the only freedom-from-side-effects establishment allegation made in that case was dismissed because AHP was found not to have made the claim. 98 F.T.C. at 374 n. 21. Bristol proposes that the correct test should be that product safety may be evaluated by "clinical or other experience, tests, or other scientific data." See E.R. Squibb & Sons, 483 F.2d at 1385 nn. 18, 19. Under that standard Bristol states that it submitted four studies to support its claim that Bufferin upsets the stomach less frequently than aspirin.
We agree with the Commission, however, that the side-effects portion of Part I is premised on the Commission's factual determination supported by substantial evidence, that only two well-controlled clinical studies could establish Bristol's superior freedom-from-side-effects claim for Bufferin. Even assuming that Bristol is entitled to raise this question here for the first time, United States v. L.A. Tucker Trucklines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33, 36-37, 73 S.Ct. 67, 68-69, 97 L.Ed. 54 (1952), the Commission found that Bristol claimed that Bufferin was proven to cause less stomach upset than aspirin without adequate substantiation. Dr. Grossman, an expert in the field of gastroenterology and gastrointestinal side-effects of aspirin, testified that only well-controlled clinical studies could establish that Bufferin causes less stomach upset than aspirin. His testimony amounts to substantial evidence on the record, which the Commission was entitled to rely upon in setting its standard. It should also be noted that the Third Circuit, in the context of reviewing the "substantial question" doctrine in that case, 4 concluded that both comparative safety (freed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Consumer Protection Div. Office of Atty. Gen. v. Consumer Pub. Co., Inc.
... ... 20-21). In making this argument, the Company relies entirely on language in John C. Winston Co. v. FTC, 3 F.2d 961 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 269 U.S. 555, 46 S.Ct. 19, 70 L.Ed. 409 (1925), where the court stated (3 F.2d at 962): ... Page 760 ... "It ... Moreover, the courts have generally upheld affirmative disclosure provisions like those in the present case. Bristol-Myers Co. v. F.T.C., 738 F.2d 554, 562 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 960, 83 L.Ed.2d 1966 (1985); American Home Products Corp. v ... ...
- Nat'l Ass'n for Fixed Annuities v. Perez
-
Kraft, Inc. v. F.T.C.
... ... FLAUM, Circuit Judge ... Kraft, Inc. ("Kraft") asks us to review an order of the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission") finding that it violated §§ 5 and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 52. The FTC determined ... 940, 75 S.Ct. 361, 99 L.Ed. 736 (1955); Zenith Radio Corp. v. FTC, 143 F.2d 29, 31 (7th Cir.1944); accord Bristol-Myers Co. v. FTC, 738 F.2d 554, 563 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1189, 105 S.Ct. 960, 83 L.Ed.2d 966 (1985); American Home Prods. Corp. v. FTC, ... ...
-
Kpmg, Llp v. S.E.C.
... ... v. FTC, 224 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.2000); Matter of Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass'n, 107 F.T.C. 510 (June 23, 1986), affirmed on other grounds, Superior ... See id. at *35. Although absolute precision is impossible, ... Page 124 ... even with an objective standard, see Bristol-Myers Co. v. FTC, 738 F.2d 554, 560 (2d Cir.1984), KPMG fails to show that it will have "difficulty applying the Commission's order to the vast majority ... ...
-
Procedural Issues in Investigations, Enforcement Actions, and Other Commission Activities
...Co., 343 U.S. 470, 473 (1952); accord Removatron Int’l Corp. v. FTC, 884 F.2d 1489, 1499 (1st Cir. 1989); Bristol-Myers Co. v. FTC, 738 F.2d 554, 561 (2d Cir. 1984); Sterling Drug v. FTC, 741 F.2d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 1984). 97. See Ekco Prods. Co., 65 F.T.C. 1163, 1213 (1964), aff’d , 347 ......
-
Federal Law of Unfair Competition
...FTC, 791 F.2d 189, 194 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (requiring clinical trials to support claims of comparative efficacy); Bristol-Myers Co. v. FTC, 738 F.2d 554, 557 (2d Cir. 1984) (same). 217. See, e.g., Country Tweeds, Inc. v. FTC, 326 F.2d 144, 146-47 (2d Cir. 1964) (misrepresenting test results); ......
-
Table of Cases
...171, 177, 178 Brake Guard Prods., 125 F.T.C. 138 (1998) ....................................... 211 Bristol-Myers Co. v. FTC, 738 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1984) .................... 201 Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962) ..................... 25 C California Dental Ass’n v. FTC, ......
-
Sources of Advertising Law
...note 10, at 178. 22. 43 Fed. Reg. at 17,969; 1978 FTC Staff Report at 10-11. 23. Bristol-Meyers Co., 102 F.T.C. 21, 321 (1983), aff’d , 738 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1984). 6 Advertising Claim Substantiation Handbook consumers likely to believe that the advertiser has actually conducted testing to ......