Which regulatory or legal actions have targeted companies running fake medical‑endorsement ads?

1. FTC rulemaking, warning letters and settlements: turning endorsements into an explicit enforcement target

The FTC has moved from guidance to more aggressive enforcement: it adopted a final rule banning fake reviews and testimonials and has put hundreds of businesses on notice about deceptive endorsements, simultaneously pursuing individual settlements that bar defendants from using deceptive endorsement practices ^[1]. The agency’s Health Products Compliance Guidance explains that liability extends beyond brand owners to officers, ad agencies, and paid endorsers, and the FTC has sought civil remedies and monetary orders against companies found to mislead consumers about medical products ^{[6] [1]}.

2. FDA action on drug promotion and the “thousands of letters” campaign

The FDA has amplified enforcement against misleading drug ads, issuing thousands of letters in a 2025–2026 crackdown aimed at direct‑to‑consumer promotion and misstatements that distort the physician‑patient relationship; those letters seek corrective action and compliance with promotional requirements and have been described by regulators as part of a wider push for "radical transparency" in drug advertising ^{[2] [7]}. The FDA also runs the Bad Ad Program to enlist healthcare professionals in spotting misleading promotion and to funnel reports for possible enforcement ^[3].

3. Coordinated FDA‑FTC activity and device ad oversight

For medical devices and consumer health products the enforcement picture is joint: GAO reports that FDA and FTC together took more than 300 enforcement actions related to medical device advertisements between 2018 and 2022, and agencies sometimes issue joint warning letters or coordinate remedies when claims implicate both product safety/labeling and deceptive advertising law ^{[8] [9]}. The FTC retains primary responsibility for truthfulness of ads for non‑restricted devices, while FDA focuses on labeling and claims tied to regulated status ^[9].

4. Civil litigation and statutory hooks beyond agency orders

Private litigants and competitors also press claims: the Lanham Act gives competitors standing to sue for false advertising and unfair competition, and plaintiffs can pair Lanham claims with state consumer‑protection actions or tort theories to seek damages and injunctions against fake endorsement schemes ^[4]. In parallel, agencies and private relators can use fraud statutes and the False Claims Act where deceptive marketing triggers payment by federal programs, and recent enforcement trends show prosecutors willing to pursue novel theories linking deceptive promotion to broader healthcare fraud ^[5].

5. Targets, remedies and enforcement reach — from executives to ad agencies

Enforcement has not been limited to brand names: the FTC’s guidance and practice make clear that owners, corporate officers, ad agencies, distributors and paid endorsers can be pursued when material connections are hidden or claims lack substantiation, and settlements have sought broad injunctive relief that forbids deceptive marketing practices and, in some matters, significant monetary penalties ^{[6] [1]}. FDA warning and untitled letters typically demand corrective steps and can lead to civil or criminal referral if misbranding or FDCA violations are implicated ^{[2] [10]}.

6. Limits, industry pushback and resource constraints

Regulatory action is robust but imperfect: FDA enforcement surged with dozens of Untitled and Warning Letters in 2025, while leadership changes and staffing shifts in Office of Prescription Drug Promotion raise questions about consistency and timelines; industry lawyers and trade groups stress due‑process and scientific substantiation needs, and courts sometimes constrain expansive theories of liability ^{[10] [5]}. Public reporting does not uniformly document every outcome, and agencies often use letters and settlements rather than litigated precedent, leaving open questions about long‑term deterrence ^{[2] [8]}.