> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Appeals Court Upholds WV Law on Misleading Lawyer Ads
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/appeals-court-upholds-wv-law-on-misleading-lawyer-ads/
- Published: 2022-06-21T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T17:49:24.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: Drugs, FDA Policy/General, Devices, #legacy-id-D5152107

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a West Virginia law regulating ads that solicit plaintiffs for lawsuits involving drugs or medical devices. The appeals court reversed a district court decision that struck down the law on First Amendment grounds. Writing in a Washington Legal Foundation *Legal Opinion Letter*, attorneys **Mark Behrens** and **Kateland Jackson** (Shook, Hardy & Bacon) [say](https://www.wlf.org/2022/06/16/publishing/fourth-circuit-upholds-west-virginia-law-regulating-misleading-drug-and-device-lawsuit-ads/?ref=fdaweb.com) the court rejected the First Amendment arguments raised by two West Virginia plaintiffs’ attorneys and a client.

The attorneys write that West Virginia is one of a growing number of states that regulate misleading ads for legal services. The state’s law prohibits ads soliciting legal clients from using certain terms or images that may mislead the public and requires certain disclosures to prevent confusion and protect public health.

Legal ads involving medications or devices can’t be presented as “consumer medical alert,” “health alert,” “consumer alert,” or “public health announcement,” the attorneys say. Ads also can’t display the logo of a government agency in a manner suggesting an affiliation with the sponsorship of that agency. Ads can’t use the word “recall” in an ad for a product that has not been recalled by a government agency.

The attorneys say the law also requires that ads state “this is a paid advertisement for legal services” and identify the sponsor. And the ads must caution viewers not to stop taking a prescribed medication without first consulting a doctor, as doing so “can result in injury or death.”

The 4th Circuit held that the state must safeguard the health and safety of its citizens and said that the law’s requirements “are just the sort of health and safety warnings that have been long considered permissible.” The court remanded the case to the district court with instructions that it be dismissed and rejected a petition for rehearing by the entire appeals court, the lawyers write