A growing tide of mistrust is reshaping America’s relationship with “experts” and expertise. A recent Reutersanalysis detailed how jurors, who once were deferential to credentialed scientists and physicians, now arrive at court skeptical of professional testimony. Fueled by the rise of social media influencers and partisan news sources, this skepticism is undermining trust not just in science—but in the very institutions that depend on it.
Nowhere is that more dangerous than in the courtroom, where verdicts hinge on facts and evidence. Increasingly, those facts are being distorted by a flood of junk science masquerading as expert analysis. In high-stakes litigation, this distortion often begins long before a case is filed, with misleading legal advertising that sows confusion and fear among the public.
I’ve spent much of my career focused on the intersection of law, medicine, and trust. As a former public servant in the health sector, I’ve watched with concern as personal injury law firms and their financiers pour billions into advertising campaigns. This marketing often leans on cherry-picked studies, sensationalist claims, or outright misinformation to recruit plaintiffs. These ads don’t just damage corporate reputations—they damage patients, and they weaken the public’s already-fragile trust in science and medicine.
The numbers speak volumes. From 2017 to 2021, trial lawyers and lead generation firms spent nearly $7 billion on 77 million legal advertisements—many targeting pharmaceuticals, chemicals, or medical devices. Often framed as “bad drug” alerts, these ads push the idea that a medication your doctor prescribed might secretly be killing you. They don’t mention Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, or the benefits of the drug for millions of patients. And they rarely encourage viewers to consult with their physician before discontinuing treatment.
The consequences can be deadly and they’re happening now.
A 2019 FDA study found that 66 patients stopped taking critical blood thinners like Eliquis or Pradaxa after watching attorney advertising. Nearly all did so without speaking to a doctor. The result? Dozens of strokes, multiple serious injuries—and seven tragic, preventable deaths that were caused in part by sophisticated legal advertising strategies designed to maximize payouts in mass tort litigation, not to inform or protect the public.
Compounding the issue is the rise of third-party litigation funding (TPLF), in which hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll these lawsuits in exchange for a cut of the returns. These financiers help cover the steep costs of national advertising and expert witness recruitment, and in return, they gain influence over the direction of the litigation. Often, this includes hiring "experts" whose scientific credentials may be real—but whose conclusions are tailored more to narrative than to truth.
This intersection—where profit-driven advertising meets skeptical jurors and questionable science—is where public health is most at risk. Jurors already mistrust experts; when those experts are handpicked by high-powered trial lawyers and backed by opaque financial interests, the justice system becomes a stage for marketing, not medicine.
To restore trust in both science and the courts, we need action on two fronts.
First, courts must rigorously enforce existing rules around expert testimony and require that expert opinions be both relevant and reliable. Judges must act as true gatekeepers—especially in mass tort cases—to ensure that only well-founded, peer-reviewed science reaches the jury box.
Second, lawmakers should more closely scrutinize the largely unregulated world of legal advertising. States like Texas and Florida have taken steps to require disclosures that clarify ads are paid legal solicitations—not medical advice. More states should follow suit. Congress, too, has a role to play in ensuring these ads do not cause public harm or mislead vulnerable patients.
We live in an age where anyone with a social media account can claim to be an expert, and where millions of dollars are spent each day convincing Americans to fear the very treatments that keep them alive. It’s not enough to simply champion "the science." We must also protect it—from misuse in our courts, and from distortion in our public discourse.
For the sake of patients, jurors, and the integrity of our justice system, the time to act is now.
Jack Yoest is an Associate Professor at The Catholic University of America in the Busch School of Business. He served as an Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia and is the author of The Memo: How the Classified Military Document That Helped the U.S. Win WWII Can Help You Succeed in Business
