FTC Staff Comment to the Hon. John C. McNeil Concerning Massachusetts S.B. 1732 to Regulate Dentist Advertising Practices

- 	-----··--·~I'
F('Of'rKI Trade' LOl1lmissioD
1
Hilum J:m I
1-,0 Cau~"''';l\ :'Ir'" t
Bo~lon. \loI,..-il,tlll-dl- 0:..'11 ~
·\r,·;,j Cud. (II 1:-/ 2:..',~,/,(,:..' I
June 	10, 	1986
The 	Honorable 	John 	C. 	McNeil, 	Chairman
Committee 	on 	Health 	Care
House 	of 	Representatives
Room 	130
State 	House
Boston, 	MA 	02133
ATTN: 	~s. 	Ronna 	Bernstein
RE: 	Senate 	Bill 	1732
Dear 	Mr. 	Chairman:
We 	are 	pleased 	to 	respond 	to 	your 	April 	24, 	1986, 	request
t.h::t 	we 	comment 	on 	Senfte 	Bill 	1732 	and 	hope 	that 	our 	ren-Iarks
will 	be 	of 	assistance. 	Although 	we 	recognize 	t~e 	need 	to
prohibit 	deceptive 	advertising 	practices 	by 	dent~sts and 	dental
hygienists, 	it 	is 	our 	belief 	that 	a 	number 	of 	p~ovisions in 	the
proposed 	legislation 	wo~ld restrain 	truthful 	cO~~unica~ion and
thereby 	unreasonably 	inhibit 	competition 	and 	injure 	consumers.
Your 	request 	for 	comments 	was 	limited 	to 	S. 	1732, 	which
would 	amend 	existing 	statutory 	provisions 	gover~ing dentistry.
These 	comments 	represent 	the 	views 	of 	the 	Boston 	Regional 	Office
and 	the 	Bureaus 	of 	Consumer 	Protection, 	Economics, 	and 	Competition
of 	the 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission. 	Views 	expresse~ are 	not
necessarily 	those 	of 	the 	Fede~a1 Trade 	Commission 	or 	of 	any
individual 	Commissioner. 	The 	Commission 	has, 	however, 	reviewed
these 	comments 	and 	has 	voted 	to 	authorize 	their 	submission.

2
Our 	comments 	are 	thus 	limited 	to 	that 	subject. 	3~wever, we 	note
that 	the 	existing 	statute, 	Mass. 	Gen. 	Laws 	Ann. 	c~. 	112, 	SS2A,
contains 	a~ditional restrictions 	on 	advertisin~ ~y dentists. _
These 	restrictions, 	like 	the 	ones 	discussed 	~e:ow, 	raise 	serious
concerns 	of 	competitive 	and 	consumer 	injury. 	~~ 	would 	encourage
an 	examination 	of 	the 	existing 	statute 	and 	wo~:: be 	happy 	to 	work
further 	with 	your 	committee 	or 	others 	on 	this 	~a:ter.
The 	Federal 	Trade 	Commissi0n 	is 	empowerec 	~~der 	15 	U.S.C.
S4l 	et 	sec., 	to 	prevent 	unfair 	methods 	of 	comDe::tion 	and 	unfair
or 	deceptive 	acts 	or 	practices 	in 	or 	affecting 	C~l'n1Tlerce.
Pursuant 	to 	its 	statutory 	mandate, 	the 	Com.rr,is::c~ has 	a~tempted
to 	encourage 	competition 	among 	members 	of 	lice~sed professions 	to
the 	maximum 	extent 	compatible 	with 	other 	legiti=ate 	state 	and
federal 	goals. 	For 	several 	years, 	the 	Commissic~ has 	been
investigating 	the 	competitive 	effects 	of 	restrictions 	on 	the
advertising 	and 	business 	practices 	of 	state-licensed
professionals, 	including 	dentists, 	optometrists, 	lawyers,
physicians, 	and 	others. 	The 	Commission's 	goal 	is 	to 	identify 	and
seek 	the 	removal 	of 	those 	restrictions 	that 	i~?e5e competition,
increase 	costs, 	and 	harm 	consumers 	without 	pro,i:ing
countervailing 	~enefits.
As 	a 	part 	of 	the 	Commission's 	effort 	to 	fcs:er 	competition
among 	licensed 	professionals, 	it 	has 	examinee 	t~e effects 	of
pu~lic and 	private 	~estrictions that 	limit 	the 	a~ility of
professiona1 2 to 	engag~ 	in 	truthful 	and 	nondece~:ive
advertising. 	In 	this 	regard, 	s~udies have 	sho.n 	that 	prices 	for
prcfessional 	goods 	and 	services 	are 	lower 	whe:e 	advertising
See, 	e.o., 	American 	Medical 	Association, 	9~ 	:.T.C. 	701 	(1979),
a::'~638 F.2d 	443 	(2d 	Cir. 	1980), 	affld 	me .... 	:-.. 	an 	ecuallv 	divided
Co~rt, 	455 	U.S. 	676 	(1982). 	The 	A~ 	decision 	-- 	which 	he16 	"that
broad 	bans 	on 	advertising 	and 	soliciting 	are 	ir.=~nsistent with 	the
nation's 	public 	po:icy" 	(94 	F.T.C. 	at 	1011) 	-- 	:~llows the 	reasoning
cf 	recent 	Supre~e Court 	decisions 	involving 	p:c:essional
reoulation. 	See, 	e.o., 	Zauoerer 	v. 	Office 	of 	D:scio1inarv 	Counsel
of- the 	St.:?reme 	Court 	of 	Ohio, 	105 	U.S. 	559 	(19;:) 	(holding 	that 	an
attorney 	may 	not 	be 	disciplinec 	for 	solicitin; 	:egal 	business
through 	printec 	advertising 	containing 	truthful 	and 	nondeceptive
information 	regarding 	the 	legal 	rights 	of 	potential 	clients 	or 	for
using 	nondeceptive 	illustrations 	0: 	pictures); 	Bates 	v. 	Sta7E: 	Bar 	of
Arizona, 	433 	U.S. 	350 	(l977) 	(holding 	a 	state 	s::~)feme court
prohibition 	on 	advertising 	invalid 	under 	the 	Fi:st 	Amendment 	a~d
according 	great 	importance 	to 	the 	role 	of 	adve::ising 	in 	the
efficient 	functioning 	of 	the 	market 	for 	profess:'onal 	services) i 	anc
Virginia 	State 	Boare 	of 	Pharmacy 	v. 	Virginia 	Ci:izens 	Council, 	425
U.S. 	748 	(1976) 	(holding 	a 	Virginia 	prohibitior. 	on 	advertising 	by
pharmacists 	invalid).
2

3
exists 	than 	where 	it 	is 	restricted 	or 	prohibited. 3 	Studies 	have
also 	provided 	evidence 	that 	restrictions 	on 	acvertising 	raise
prices 	but 	do 	not 	increase 	the 	quality 	of 	services 	available. 4
Furthermore, 	truthful 	advertising 	benefits 	co~sumers by 	redueing
search 	costs 	and 	enabling 	consumers 	to 	make 	mo~e 	informed
decisions. 	Therefore, 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	tr~:~ful and
nondeceptive 	advertising 	is 	restricted, 	highe~ prices 	and 	a
decrease 	in 	consumer 	welfare 	are 	likely 	to 	res~lt. 	The
Commiss:on 	has 	also 	exa~ined various 	justifica:ions 	that 	have
been 	offered 	for 	restrictions 	on 	advertising 	a~d 	has 	concluded,
as 	the 	courts 	have, 	that, 	by 	and 	large, 	these 	proffered 	reasons
do 	not 	justify 	restrictions 	on 	truthful 	adver:ising. 	For 	these
reasons, 	only 	false 	or 	deceptive 	advertising 	s~ould be
prohibited.
We 	believe 	that 	a 	simple 	prohibition 	asa:~st false 	or
deceptive 	advertising 	is 	the 	best 	means 	of 	pro:ecting 	both
cons~mers and 	the 	competitive 	process. 	Any 	m~~e 	restrictive
standard 	is 	likely 	to 	suppress 	the 	disseminat:~~ of 	potentially
useful 	information 	and 	may 	contribute 	to 	an 	i~=rease in 	prices.
I. 	Disadvantages 	and 	Costs 	of 	the 	Proposed 	Legislation
It 	is 	desirable 	for 	consumers 	to 	have 	as 	much 	truthful
information 	as 	possible 	about 	the 	price, 	quali:y 	and 	other
attributes 	of 	goods 	and 	services. 	The 	propose: 	legiElation 	could
reduce 	the 	availability ,of 	such 	information 	a~: 	thus 	lessen 	the
opportunity 	for 	informed 	decision 	making 	and 	:~crease cor.sumer
search 	costs.
A. 	Prohibitions 	on 	Comm~nication of 	NonF:ice 	Information
Bureau 	of 	Economics 	and 	Cleveland 	Regiona: 	Office, 	Federal 	Trade
Co~~:ssion, Imp:oving 	Consumer 	Access 	to 	Lega: 	S~:vices: 	The 	Case
for 	Removing 	Restrictions 	on 	Truthful 	Aevertis:ng 	(1984): 	Bureau 	of
Economics, 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission, 	Effects 	c: 	Restrictions 	on
Adve::ising 	and 	Commercial 	Practice 	in 	the 	Prc:essions: 	The 	Case 	of
Optometry 	(1980) i 	Benham 	and 	Benham, 	Reoulat:~= ~rough 	the
Pro:ess:o~s: 	A Persoective 	on 	Information 	Co~:rol, 18 	J.L. 	& Econ.
421 	(1975) i 	Benham, 	The 	Effects 	of 	Advertisinc 	on 	the 	Price 	of
Eveclasses, 	15 	J.L. 	& Econ. 	337 	(1972).
Case
4 	Bureau 	of 	Economics, 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission, 	Effects 	of
Restrictions 	on 	Advertising 	and 	Commercial 	Prc=tice 	in 	the
Professions: 	The 	Case 	of 	Optometry 	(1980): 	Caoy, 	Restricted
Advertising 	and 	Competition: 	The 	Case 	of 	Retail 	Drugs 	(1976):
McChesney 	and 	M~ris, 	The 	Effects 	of 	Advertisi~= on 	the 	Quality
Leoal 	Services, 	65 	A.B.A.J. 	1503 	(1979): 	Muris 	and 	McChesney,
Advertisino 	and 	the 	Price 	and 	Quality 	of 	Lecal 	Services: 	The
for 	Leocl 	Clinics, 	1979 	Am. 	B. 	Found. 	Researcr. 	J. 	li9 	(1979).
3
of

5
A num~er 	of 	sections 	of 	the 	proposed 	legis:ation 	would
appear 	to 	prohi~it communication 	of 	important 	nonprice
information 	that 	could 	aid 	consumers 	in 	selecti~g a 	dentist 	or
dental 	hygienist. 	As 	such, 	they 	could 	unreaso~ably inhibit
competition 	and 	injure 	consumers.
First, 	Se=tion 	(1) 	would 	prohibit 	advertisements 	by 	dentists
or 	dental 	hygienists 	that 	"contain 	a 	statement 	of 	opinion 	as 	to
the 	qual~ty of 	dental 	services." 	A ban 	such 	as 	this 	on 	claims
about 	q~:lity is 	likely 	to 	be 	injurious 	to 	co~p~tition and
consumers. 	Virtually 	all 	statements 	about 	a 	se:ler's
performance, 	experience, 	or 	qualifications 	coul~ be 	interpreted
as 	implying 	statements 	of 	opinion 	as 	to 	quality. 	A ban 	on 	such
claims 	would 	make 	it 	difficult 	for 	a 	seller 	to 	provide 	consumers
truthful 	information 	about 	differences 	between 	his 	or 	her
services 	and 	those 	of 	his 	or 	her 	competitors. 	When 	sellers
cannot 	compare 	the 	quality 	and 	related 	attr~butes of 	their
services 	to 	those 	of 	their 	competitors, 	the 	incentive 	to 	compete
on 	those 	a 5tributes 	is 	likely 	to 	be 	reduced, 	to 	the 	detriment 	of
consumers.
Second, 	Section 	(3) 	would 	prohibit 	advertisements 	that
arefer 	to 	benefits 	or 	other 	attributes 	of 	denta: 	procedures 	or
products 	that 	involve 	signifir.ant 	risks 	but 	that 	do 	not 	include
realistic 	assessments 	of 	the 	safety 	and 	efficacy 	of 	those
procedures 	or 	products." 	We 	recognize 	that 	disclosures 	of 	safety
and 	efficacy 	:nformation 	may 	ce 	necessary 	in 	so~e circumstances
to 	prevent 	deception 	or 	health 	fraud. 	Those 	c::cumstances,
however, 	sho~ld be 	determined 	on 	a 	case-by-cas~ 	basis. 	This
provision 	~ay 	be 	overly 	broad 	and 	may 	prevent 	cr 	chill 	the
communication 	to 	consumers 	of 	valuable 	information 	about 	new 	and
innovative 	dental 	procedures 	and 	practices. 	I: 	is 	possible 	that
information 	concernin~ assessments 	of 	safety 	a~: efficacy 	could
be 	communicated 	in 	other 	ways 	that 	would 	not 	prohibit 	or 	chill
no ..dece?tive 	advertising. 	For 	example, 	disclos~res to 	individual
patient2, 	by 	phone 	or 	in 	person, 	would 	provide 	:he 	pertinent
information 	to 	patients 	in 	a 	settins 	where 	any 	questions 	could 	be
answe~ed directly.
T~irG, 	Section 	(4) 	would 	ban 	advertisements 	that 	·contain
statistical 	data, 	representations 	or 	other 	information 	that 	is
not 	susceptible 	to 	reasonable 	verification 	by 	the 	public." 	The
intent 	of 	this 	ban 	is 	unclear 	and, 	de?ending 	o~ 	its
interpretation, 	it 	could 	have 	significant 	anticompetitive
effects. 	If 	the 	intent 	is 	to 	require 	dentists 	to 	have
We 	have 	not 	commented 	on 	Section 	(2) 	because, 	although
restrictive, 	it 	is 	not 	aimed 	at 	deception 	but 	at 	controlling
appeals 	to 	anxiety.
4

-".
substantiation 	for 	advertising 	claims, 	this 	would 	be 	consistent
with 	Federal 	Txaae 	Commission 	deception 	case 	law,6 	and 	would 	not
be 	objectionable. 	However, 	the 	language 	could 	be 	construed 	much
more 	broadly 	to 	require 	not 	only 	that 	the 	advertiser 	have 	a 	-
reasonable 	basis 	for 	advertising 	claims, 	but 	also 	that 	the
su~stantiation material 	be 	available 	to 	and 	understandable 	by 	the
general 	public. 	This 	would 	significantly 	restrict 	useful
nondeceptive 	advertising. 	If 	a 	substantiation 	requirement 	is
desired, 	a 	simple 	requirement 	that 	a 	dentist 	have 	a 	reasonable
basis 	for 	advertising 	claims 	would 	be 	preferable 	to 	the 	proposed
language.
Fourth, 	Section 	(7) 	requires 	the 	Rtruthful 	disclosure 	of 	the
source 	and 	authorship 	of 	any 	message 	published 	under 	a 	dentist's
byline. R 	This 	requirement 	appears 	to 	be 	aimed 	at 	Rghostwritten"
informational 	columns, 	which, 	like 	most 	advertisements, 	are 	not
written 	by 	the 	advertiser. 	If 	such 	an 	advertisement's 	contents
a:e 	accurate 	and 	it 	is 	not 	deceptively 	presented 	as 	something
other 	than 	an 	advertisement, 	no 	deception 	or 	other 	harm 	to
consumers 	will 	result. 	Therefore, 	we 	believe 	that 	special
restrictions 	aimed 	at 	Rghostw:itten R advertising 	are 	unnecessary.
B. 	Prohibitions 	on 	Communication 	of 	Price 	Information
Two 	sections 	of 	the 	proposed 	le9islation 	appear 	to 	place
unnecessarily 	broad 	prohibitions 	or 	restrictions 	on 	the
communication 	of 	price 	information. 	As 	the 	Supreme 	Court 	noted
in 	Bates 	v. 	State 	Bar 	of 	Arizona, 	the 	lack 	of 	price 	information
Rserves 	to 	increase 	the 	[consumer's) 	difficulty 	of 	discovering
the 	lowest 	cost 	seller 	of 	acceptable 	ability. 	As 	a 	result 	••.
rD~ofessionalsJ are 	isolated 	from 	c9mpetition 	and 	the 	in~entive
to 	price 	com?etitively 	is 	reduced." 	The 	absence 	of 	such
information 	"servers) 	to 	pe§petuate 	the 	market 	position 	of
established 	professionals. R
First, 	Section 	(5) 	would 	ban 	advertisements 	that 	refer 	to 	Ra
~ee 	or 	fees 	for 	dental 	services 	and 	fail 	to 	disclose 	that
ac=itional 	fees 	may 	be 	involved 	in 	individual 	cases." 	The 	intent
of 	this 	language 	is 	unclear, 	and 	it 	could 	be 	interpreted 	in 	such
a 	way 	as 	to 	cbill 	truthful 	advertising. 	For 	example, 	it 	could 	be
read 	to 	require 	that 	an 	advertisement 	that 	states 	a 	fee 	for 	a
routine 	dental 	examination 	would 	violate 	the 	stat~te 	if 	it 	did
6 	See, 	e.c., 	National 	Commission 	on 	Egg 	Nutrition, 	88 	F.T.C. 	89
(1976), 	affld, 	570 	F.2d 	157 	(7th 	Cir. 	1977), 	cert. 	denied, 	439
U.S. 	821, 	reissued, 	92 	F.T.C. 	848 	(1978).
7
8
433 	U.S. 	at 	377.
433 	U.S. 	at 	378.
5 	...

not 	disclose 	that 	additional 	fees 	would 	be 	charged 	for 	the
filling 	of 	a 	cavity 	found 	during 	the 	examination. 	We 	recommend
that 	the 	above 	language 	be 	clarified 	to 	prohibi~ only 	deceptive
advertising 	claims.
S~cond, 	Section 	(6) 	would 	prohibit 	dentists 	and 	dental
hygien:sts 	from 	woffering 	a 	discount 	for 	dental 	services 	without
disclosing 	the 	total 	fee 	from 	which 	the 	discoun: 	will 	apply.w
This 	section 	would 	apparently 	require 	dentists 	to 	disclose 	the
regular 	price 	of 	each 	type 	of 	service 	to 	which 	an 	advertised
discount 	would 	be 	applicable. 	Such 	a 	require~~~t 	would
effectively 	preclude 	the 	advertising 	of 	across-:~e-board
discounts 	(e.a., 	Wten 	percent 	eff 	all 	dental 	services") 	for
general 	promctional 	purposes 	or 	for 	specific 	groups 	such 	as
senior 	citizens 	or 	students. 	Since 	it 	~ould often 	be 	impractical
to 	state 	in 	an 	advertisement 	the 	regular 	prices 	of 	all 	of 	the
services 	covered 	by 	such 	an 	offer, 	this 	section 	would 	be 	likely
to 	suppress 	certain 	forms 	of 	truthful 	and 	valua~le advertising,
and 	it 	~ould make 	other 	forms 	of 	nondeceptive 	acvertising 	more
costly.
II. 	Conclusion
As 	a 	general 	matter, 	the 	proposed 	legislation 	affecting
advertising 	should 	be 	directed 	only 	at 	specific 	forms 	of
prom~tion that 	are 	"inherently 	likely 	to 	deceive 	or 	[as 	to 	which]
the 	record 	indicates 	that 	a 	particular 	f~Om or 	~ethod of
advertising 	has 	in 	fact 	been 	deceptive. w Measured 	by 	this
standard, 	the 	sections 	of 	the 	legislation 	discussed 	above 	appear
to 	be 	overly 	restrictive 	of 	truthful 	communica::ons. 	Because 	the
sections 	are 	likely 	to 	have 	an 	adverse 	effect 	O~ competition 	and
on 	consumer 	welfare, 	we 	believe 	they 	should 	be 	eliminated 	or
mocified 	in 	favor 	of 	provisions 	that 	are 	focuse: 	narro~ly on
deceptive 	advertising 	practices. 	As 	we 	noted 	earlier, 	it 	is 	the
staff's 	position 	that 	a 	prohibition 	of 	false 	or 	decepti,e
advertising 	is 	sufficient 	to 	protect 	consumers.
Amendment. 	See,
493 	F. 	Supp.~4
In 	re 	R.M.J., 	455 	U.S. 	191, 	202 	(1982).
9 	Such 	a 	requirement 	may 	violate 	the 	First
e.a., 	South 	Ognen 	C\TS 	Store, 	Inc. 	v. 	Ambach,
(S.D.N.Y. 	1980).
10
E

· .
We 	thank 	you 	for 	your 	willingness 	to 	consider 	our
comments. 	We 	would 	be 	happy 	to 	supply 	copies 	of 	the 	studies 	-
referred 	to 	above 	O~ 	to 	provide 	any 	other 	assista~ce you 	desire.
Phoebe 	D. 	Morse
Regional 	Direc~or
Boston 	Regional 	Office
7

JOHN C. Mc~t:IL
36T.. ""'IO:;l~£SEX OIS-'RI:::-:-
C:'7y 01" l01I 4~O['"
OIST.I~ 0 ..... :[
Tn.. 322.4;;:.;
!lJ£ 	?f:./l'/71C'/lu:£aI1A ~vltaJJado£/L>
HOUSE: OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMM:TiEE ON HEALTH CARE:
OFFICE: OF THE CHAIRMAN
11I00'" 130
STATE MOuSE
BOSTON ...... 0:' 33
Tt~. 722·: 130
Mr. 	~1ll1a~ P. 	McDonough
Federal Trade 	COm=i5Sio~
150 Cause~ay Street
Bosto~. ~~ 	02114
Dear Mr. 	McDonou£h:
ApT:l 24. 	1986
I 	a~ enclosing a 	~O?y 0: 	S.li32. 	An Act 	Rebula:~~; Certai~ Dece?tive
AcveTtisi~g B: Dentists.
la·.....
Trace
It 	is 	questic~a~le ~he:he~ this bill 	is 	consis:e~: ~ith federal
The 	Health Care 	Co~~it:ee re~uests the 	opi~io~ c: 	the 	Federal
Co~~ission O~ t~is ~ct:€=.
R.B :c
Tha~k you.

( :
I
,
112 	§ 	52 	PROn:5SIO~S A.-.;n OCCt:PATJO~S
§ 	52A. 	JJI ega I advertising
l'o rel;istered dentist, person prac::~:::g dentist.ry, or dental hYbieni.st
st...]] include, or ;::.ennit. or cause to b€ i:".:luded. in any newspaper. radio.
or tele\-lsion advertisement. or in any 6play si~:. personal solicit.:itior.
or o~her manner of advertising. any ~-:::ter. or spoken words or S:4:.€-
ments 0: a character tending to decein c:- misiead the pu~lic, or c1aimi.OO:E;
professional stJperio~ty or the periol'":':".:o.:::e 0: professional services in a
superior manner, or the performance c: rainless operations of a dental or
oral surgical na~ure. or shall ao\'ertiH ...-itt. signs or printed adver.ise-
ment.s. or by means of show cases. ro:::.aining the representation of a
too:~. teeth, den:4l restoration of an:; I;;:,.d or of ..... hatsoever desig-r. or
description or any portion of the hurr.a:-. heac 0: neck or photograph of
a:'Jy ;:'€~on. or shall make or set for":...:-;:, prorr:ises. guarantees. repre-
sen:.a~ior.s. or statement.s that satisfac:i-::. or a cure will result from the
petiorrroance of professional services: ?:-:-\·idec. however. that the fore-
gOing shall 	not be construe--: to prt";e::t the publication of tn:th!:.l1
aC·.. enise:7ien:.s concerning the avail.:·:::::; and price of routine dent.<.i
se!·....ices by persons subject to :..~is sec':c:.. 	~ ot~.ing in the provisions 0:
this section shall be construed to apply u: or prohibit. restrict or limi~ the
op€rG:ions of the business of a den~: :.:o.:'orawry. 	The board may. by
repla:ion. in a manner consistent v.,t:: :'-.e foregoin&. fur...her reg-ula:.e
ac\'ertisir.g by pe!'sons subject to th;~ se-::ion.
Adced by S:.l93~. c. 2Sl. 	Amended by 5~::37. c. 2.52: 	St.1954. c. 405. § 2;
5:"1965, c. 583. § 8; SUS";'i , c. i57. § 11; 5:":978, c. 50&, § 4.

I SL'ULAR h1AITER FlLEI? DURlt'G PAST SESSION·
S. /73;). 	By..... 	Be-·o 	: 	a 	" 	L" 	-- - 	,- -
__ 	. 	......-. 	, 	petltlon 	'\. i.' 	t 	t •••
~:$:~~~.) of 	Lo~:s P. 	Be~toi.a::i 	fo~ leg:slation 	toe:~:_. :- 	--.~t
de~e?t:ve 	adve~tisin; 	by dentis~s. 	H~lth ea- 	~e6ula.e certain	__••e.
JS THE YEAR OSE THOl'SASD l'iISE HVSDRED A~D EICafn-- --
;~ 	AC~ 	REG~LA7:NG CE~~h!N DECE?T!\~
AN 	ACT
., ..
1 '
..
Sf' il tnl;nrd, by Inr Stncu cr:d Housr of RrprrJtnl~ti\'rJ in Crnrra! Coun QJstmbir:.
er:: by ti-:r authority ('If du samt. QS folio ... ·s:
_ 	..,. .at~ 	Section 	52h 	0: 	C:'ap-:.er 	112 	of 	the 	General 	La.....'s 	as
~~5t 	=ece~-:'ly 	amended 	by 	Ch2?~er 	508 	of 	the 	Ac:s 	cf 	1978 	is
a 	registered 	ae~-:'is~, perso~ 	--=t:>-'''",e--v	f..t_ •• 	,-_. I
cr 	ce:: tal 	hyC; ieni s-:' 	inc: l ~=e, 	or 	perrr:i t, 	c= 	cause 	to 	be
in 	racio, 	or 	television
acvertise:71ent, . 	~ .,. 	1or 	~n 	any 	~~s?_ay slc;n, 	persona 	solicitatio:i
cr 	other 	manner 	of 	acvertising, 	any 	~ritte~ or 	spoken 	~orcs
or 	statenents 	0: 	a 	character 	that:
(1) 	contain 	a 	state~er:t 	0: 	opi~ion 	as 	to 	the 	~~ali-:'y c:
.... ""

.'
c . 	- 	T·-
(2) 	appeal 	to 	an 	incividual's 	anxiety 	in 	an 	excessive
0= 	~nfai= 	way, 	c= 	which 	i~ti~idate cr 	exe=t 	undue 	p=essu=e
(3) 	re!e= 	to 	benefits 	0= 	othe= 	att=~utes of 	cental
p=oce=~=es 0= 	?=ocucts 	that 	involve 	si~~ificant risks 	but
that 	do 	not 	incluce 	realistic 	assess~e~~s of 	the 	s~fety and
efficacy 	of 	those 	p=oced~=es 0= 	products;
(~) 	contain 	statistical 	data, 	=ep=esentations, 	c= 	othe=
info~ation 	t~at 	is 	net 	susce?~i~le 	to 	=easonable
ve=ification 	by 	the 	p~blic;
(5) 	=efe= 	to 	a 	fee 	0= 	fees 	fe= 	cE~~~l 	se=vices 	and 	fail
to 	cisclose 	fee s 	I.,cy 	be 	involved 	in
inC:ivic1.:.2.1 	cases, 	if 	the 	possibility 	cf 	incu==ing 	such
(6) 	offe= 	a 	disceunt 	fc= 	dental 	se~:ices ~it~out
(7) 	fail 	to 	!i.ake 	t=-..:t::ful 	di5:::10s-..::e 	of 	t~e 	sou:-:::e 	-- -	c:.. .........
b "'~"'oQ	~ -_.. _.
...