The 'Free Exam' and 'Board Certified Specialist' Campaign
A licensed Oklahoma optometrist launches a six-week radio and website campaign: 'FREE EYE EXAM - NO CATCH!' In 8-point type at the bottom of the website it says 'with purchase of a complete pair of eyeglasses of $199 or more.' The ad also says '20/20 VISION GUARANTEED OR YOUR MONEY BACK' and describes the optometrist as a 'Board Certified Glaucoma Specialist.' The optometrist is state-licensed, has completed a 10-hour glaucoma continuing education course, and is not certified by any board. The practice offers a $25 gift card to any patient who refers a friend who completes an exam. The campaign is scheduled on two stations and is expected to reach 50,000 listeners. The optometrist asks whether the ads can run as written and whether the gift card promotion is permissible.
1. Evaluate the 'FREE EYE EXAM - NO CATCH' and '20/20 guaranteed or your money back' claims.
Read the worked answer
Both claims are risky and likely deceptive as written. 'Free' is not free if the patient must buy $199 eyeglasses to obtain the examination. The qualifying condition is buried in 8-point type, while the word 'FREE' is the headline. Advertising rules and general consumer protection principles require that material conditions be clear and conspicuous, not hidden. A reasonable listener could believe the exam is available without purchase, which is a bait-and-switch concern.
The 20/20 guarantee is also misleading. Not every patient can achieve 20/20, and a refund does not cure the implied promise of a medical outcome. If the practice wants to advertise a satisfaction policy, it should describe the actual terms, eligibility, and limits in the same message, and it should avoid implying that vision outcomes can be guaranteed. Commercial speech is protected, but false or misleading advertising is not. The optometrist should revise the ad to state the purchase requirement plainly or drop the 'free' framing, and remove the outcome guarantee unless it is restated as a clearly limited refund policy.
2. What is wrong with 'Board Certified Glaucoma Specialist,' and is the referral gift card permissible?
Read the worked answer
State licensure is not board certification. If the optometrist is not certified by a recognized certifying board, the phrase 'Board Certified' is literally false. A 10-hour continuing education course does not create board certification or specialist status. 'Glaucoma Specialist' may also imply advanced training or credentialing that the optometrist does not hold. The ad should state only accurate credentials, such as 'licensed optometrist' and, if true, the specific certification and the certifying body.
The referral gift card is separately problematic. Paying a patient for bringing in another patient can look like fee-splitting or an inducement, depending on how Oklahoma's business-practice and advertising rules are applied. Even if a promotional gift is allowed in some form, tying it to completion of a professional service creates compliance risk and can distort clinical referrals. The safer course is to withdraw the referral payment or have counsel review it before use. The optometrist should not rely on the idea that 'everyone does it' or that the amount is small.
3. What should the practice do before the campaign airs and after it has aired?
Read the worked answer
Before airing, the practice should revise the scripts and website so that every material condition is clear, the credentials are accurate, and no outcome is guaranteed. Someone other than the optometrist should review the final copy against the board's advertising rules. The practice should keep copies of the final ads, the substantiation for any claims, the dates and stations used, and the training given to staff who answer calls about the promotion.
If the ads have already run, the practice should stop or correct the misleading portions promptly, preserve the as-aired recordings and web pages, and document the corrective action. If a patient complains that the exam was not free, the practice should resolve the complaint fairly and record what happened. Destroying the old ads or backdating revised copy would worsen a board inquiry. The compliance lesson is that advertising is a recordkeeping and supervision issue, not just a marketing issue.