Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Disclaimers in Advertising

We found no evidence that consumers benefit from government-mandated disclaimers in advertising. Experiments and common experience show that admonishments to change or avoid behaviors often have effects opposite to those intended. We found 18 experimental studies that provided evidence relevant to mandatory disclaimers. Mandated messages increased confusion in all, and were ineffective or harmful in the 15 studies that examined perceptions, attitudes, or decisions. We conducted an experiment on the effects of a government-mandated disclaimer for a Florida court case. Two advertisements for dentists offering implant dentistry were shown to 317 subjects. One advertiser had implant dentistry credentials. Subjects exposed to the disclaimer more often recommended the advertiser who lacked credentials. Women and less-educated subjects were particularly prone to this error. In addition, subjects drew false and damaging inferences about the credentialed dentist. Key words: consumer protection; corrective advertising; decision making; government regulation; judgment. Sellers often provide disclaimers in order to inform customers about their products and to avoid lawsuits. Lawmakers and regulators nevertheless sometimes 1 impose disclaimers when they believe that sellers would otherwise fail to inform buyers. Mandatory disclaimers are government-required messages that have the form: Product-X is [not] Y. In this paper, we scrutinize the rationale for such restrictions on speech, examine the legal history of disclaimers in the U.S., and review the prior experimental evidence on the costs and benefits of disclaimers. We then describe an experiment that we conducted for a court case about a disclaimer mandated by the government of Florida