In the late 1800s, you could buy a bottle labeled "miracle cure" that promised to treat everything from tuberculosis to cancer to alcoholism. The ingredients? Often cocaine, opium, or alcohol mixed with colored water. Sometimes just colored water.
The sellers could claim anything because nobody was checking.
People died believing they were treating serious illnesses with products that did nothing - or made things worse. This wasn't small-scale fraud. Patent medicine was a massive industry. Traveling salesmen moved from town to town selling bottles with grand promises and zero accountability. By the time customers realized the product didn't work, the seller was three towns away.
1906 - Pure Food and Drug Act: After journalists exposed the patent medicine industry and meatpacking scandals, manufacturers had to list certain ingredients for the first time. They could still make outrageous claims, but at least you'd know if you were drinking cocaine.
1937 - The Sulfanilamide Disaster: A company released a liquid version of a sulfa drug using diethylene glycol as a solvent - basically antifreeze. They never tested it. Over 100 people died, many of them children.
1938 - Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Required safety testing before products could be sold.
Ongoing - FTC Expansion: Even with ingredient disclosure and safety testing, advertising remained a problem. Companies found creative ways to mislead without technically lying. Doctors recommending cigarettes in ads. "Scientifically proven" claims that proved nothing. The Federal Trade Commission expanded its role to prevent deceptive advertising.
These regulations share a common framework: before you can claim something does X, you need to demonstrate it actually does X. Before you can sell something as safe, you need to show it won't harm people.
The burden of proof sits with the seller, not the buyer.
This assumes something important about you: that when you have accurate information, you can make reasonable decisions. The regulations don't tell you what to buy. They ensure that what you're told has some relationship to reality.
You still choose, but you're choosing based on facts rather than fabricated stories.
The alternative to regulated advertising isn't "freedom." The alternative is the patent medicine era - decisions based on false information, consequences you couldn't have anticipated.
Having standards for what can be claimed isn't about restricting choice. It's about making choice meaningful.
The rules exist because people got hurt when sellers could say anything. They continue to exist because that dynamic hasn't changed: when there's money in making claims, someone will make false ones unless there are consequences.
Traditional advertising - TV, print, billboards - operates under these rules. Someone checked the claims. Ingredients are disclosed. There's accountability.
But not everything that tries to sell you something operates under these rules.
Knowing the difference changes how you evaluate what you're being told.