Match specificity of risk statements to benefit statements
Rule
If benefit claims use the product's brand name or specific/quantified terms, risk statements should use the same brand name and comparable specificity rather than vaguer terms (e.g., drug class name, generic terms).
Check
Compare naming and specificity used in benefit statements versus risk statements (e.g., brand name vs. class name, specific numbers vs. vague terms).
Escalate when
When risk statements use noticeably vaguer terms or different naming than parallel benefit statements.
Where this comes from
Section III.A.3, Framing Risk Information · page 12. The highlighted words are quoted exactly; a script confirms they appear in the source before the rule can be published.
… Research consistently shows that framing the same information in different ways can change the way audience members respond to that information. Thus, the way information is phrased can significantly influence the message the audience receives from a promotional piece. Framing risk information in non-specific terms can undermine the effective communication of that information to the audience. Risk information should be presented in the same terms or with the same degree of specificity as benefit information. For example, if a promotional piece refers to the product by name in presenting efficacy information, it should refer to the product by name in presenting risk information, rather than by referring to the product’s device or drug class. > Example 7: If the benefit information refers to the brand name, “Drug X,” then “Common side > effects associated with Drug X” would be preferable to “Common side effects asso…
- Document
- FDA guidance: Presenting Risk Information in Prescription Drug and Medical Device Promotion (see document)
- Version
- as retrieved — the publisher does not version this document; the fingerprint below identifies the exact file
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-21 from www.fda.gov
- Fingerprint
- f5654ab082f6cd4408143f16…
FDA guidance describes the agency's current thinking. It is not binding law, and this rule is a recommendation, not an obligation.