| Aside from New Zealand, the US is the only country where drug companies can interrupt your nightly news or sports broadcast to advertise drugs that you may not ever need. The jingles are catchy, the images normally uplifting and the voiceover relays diseases and treatments that eventually become household names. Who hasn’t had the “oh oh oh Ozempic” tune stuck in their head? (If you hadn’t before, you do now.) These ads are also big business. Pharma companies spent $10.8 billion in 2024 on direct-to-consumer drug ads, according to data firm MediaRadar. Pfizer and AbbVie splash out more than most, with AbbVie spending $2 billion advertising directly to consumers, focused on anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq, which brought in $5 billion in sales in the first three months of the year. Those drugs are AbbVie’s follow-ons to Humira, its blockbuster that got so much advertising air time in its prime that it’s likely the reason you know the term “plaque psoriasis.” The ad blitz had benefits: At one point Humira was the best-selling drug in the world. That all could be changing. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long pointed out Americans take a lot of prescription drugs and he’s had drug ads in his sights — among other things. Instead of banning them outright, which could be vulnerable to legal challenges, President Donald Trump signed a memo Tuesday directing health agencies to require companies to disclose more side effects in TV ads. Trump’s also promising to enforce existing rules about misleading ads on TV and social media. A Trump administration official said the Food and Drug Administration planned to send 100 enforcement letters and thousands of warning letters. Depending on how old you are, you may remember once hearing far more side effects in commercials than you do today. In 1997, regulations changed, allowing companies to advise people to talk to their doctors or consult company websites instead. Drug companies could pull back on TV advertising if they don’t see benefits in buying longer spots. They could pivot to more vague advertisements with fewer requirements. Or the ads could return to the olden days of reciting every last potential — and uncomfortable — side effect for users. Americans who remembers TV ads for drugs like Viagra know just how awkward this could get. — Cynthia Koons and Rachel Cohrs Zhang | 
