MINI-CASE Prior to 1997, Broadcast Ads for Prescription Drugs Could Not

MINI-CASE
Prior to 1997, broadcast ads for prescription drugs could not mention the ailment for which the drug received FDA approval for and the name of the drug in the same advertisement. That is, only one or the other could be mentioned, which led to much confusion on the part of consumers. In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration loosened its controls on pharmaceutical companies, and as a result, the amount of prescription drug advertising on television has skyrocketed. Now both the ailment and the name of the drug can be mentioned, but major side effects must also be mentioned and there must be an indication where the consumer can get more information, such as from a magazine ad or a web site. Some have been quite critical of this direct-to-consumer prescription advertising, claiming it has led to an increase in requests for costlier drugs, when the less expensive generic drug would be just as effective.
-Refer to Mini-Case. An advertisement by the manufacturer of Flonase, a prescription allergy nasal spray, compared its product with another nasal spray on the market, Nasonex, and claimed that it controlled allergy symptoms for a longer period of time. The ad was effective, resulting in a 2 percent increase in market share for Flonase. Manufacturers of Nasonex claimed that the advertisement misrepresented their product and basically made a false comparison. Under which law, can the manufacturer of Nasonex seek damages from the manufacturer of Flonase?

A) Federal Trade Commission Act
B) Pure Food and Drug Act
C) FTC Improvement Act
D) Wheeler-Lea Amendment
E) Lanham Act