As you’ve probably heard, the Trump administration would like to require that drug ads include the per month cost of all drugs that are over $35/month absent rebates, drug price negotiations with one’s insurance company etc.
The drug companies are already insisting that compelling them to say something would be unconstitutional and in violation of their first amendment rights.
Does this argument hold any water? It seems to me that the government already compels speech in multiple arenas, such as:
[li]By requiring politicians to say that the messages in their political ads are their words[/li][li]By requiring alcohol and tobacco products carry health warnings[/li][li]By requiring banks to give whatever rapid spiel it is at the end of banking ads (FDIC?)[/li][li]By requiring foods to give ingredient and calorie information[/li][li]By requiring these same drug companies to include side-effect information in the same ads[/li][/ul]
They also don’t allow diet supplements to make unverified claims, though I guess that’s more in the nature of compelling you *not *to say something.
And moreover, the government is apparently allowed to disallow TV ads at all without violating the constitution like they already have tobacco so it seems like the US (and perhaps New Zealand) could instead double down and join the rest of the world in banning direct-to-consumer drug ads all together.
So are their valid arguments that this be unconstitutional when the above list isn’t? Or have those things just not been challenged on constitutionality?