The court held that whether or not Warner-Lambert acted unethically would depend

Question

The court held that whether or not Warner-Lambert acted unethically would depend upon the extent to which it knew the claims it was making were false. Ethicists would point out that one does not have to have perfect vision and information in order to recommend a product. The state of science is such that medical positions today will be supplanted by others tomorrow. For example, in 1879, alcohol, Listerine’s major ingredient, was presumed to kill certain germs. This is even today only a partial truth. The company’s claim is misleading. Warner-Lambert was ordered to include a disclaimer that “Listerine does not kill the germs that cause colds” on its labels for two years. The court declined to include prefatory language requested by the FTC, “Contrary to previous claims.” Using a minimum of three sentences a) Do you agree with the court's ruling? b) Why or why not?

Explanation / Answer

Yes,I agree with the court's ruling.In my opinion it was appropriate for the court to decline to include prefatory language requested by the FTC,"contrary to previous claims".Because Listerine was a well established brand ruling in the market for years and including such phrase in its labels would hamper its market image .As a corrective advertisement Listerine included a disclaimer that "Listerine doesnot kill the germs that causes cold" on its labels for two years.But it is unethical to order to add the phrase "contrary to the previous claims" as the company itself was,to some extent,not aware that the claims they were making were false and since for years Listerine was believed to cure cold and sore throats.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.