Academy Advocacy Win: FTC Recognizes Audiology Expertise and Term “Doctor” in Hearing Aid Endorsements

In late July of 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued proposed revisions to its Guides on Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (“Guides”). Included in this revision was a proposed modification of an illustrative example that implied that an endorser of a hearing aid should not be referred to as “Doctor” as this implies that the endorser is a medical doctor (MD). The text went on to note that “a non-medical doctor” (e.g., an individual with a PhD in audiology) might be able to endorse the product if the advertisement discloses the nature and limits of the endorser’s experience.

The Academy submitted formal comments and highlighted current educational training requirements for a doctorate of audiology (AuD) and state scopes of practice for audiology in all 50 states that speak to the expertise of the audiologist in the area of hearing and hearing aids. Academy comments also referenced the Bureau of Labor Statistics statements on the education, training, and areas of expertise of an audiologist.

We are pleased to note that the final FTC Guides released last week reflect the Academy’s input and provide the following: On reflection, the Commission recognizes that, in the absence of a white coat, a stethoscope, or other indicia of an endorser being a physician, consumers are likely to believe an endorser identified as a doctor has expertise in the area of hearing but might not expect the doctor to be a medical doctor. The Commission is revising the example such that either a medical doctor with substantial experience in audiology or a non-medical doctor with a PhD or AuD in audiology could endorse the hearing aid as a ‘‘doctor’’ without any disclosure. Finally, the example will say a doctor without substantial experience in the area of hearing might be able to endorse the product if the ad clearly and conspicuously discloses the nature and limits of the endorser’s expertise. Given the revision to the example, it is no longer necessary to address how a person with a doctorate in audiology should be identified.