Kim Kardashian

FDA Worried About Kim Kardashian Morning Sickness Post on Instagram

Slaps pharmaceutical company with warning letter.



Kim Kardashian is one of a number of celebrity, semi-celebrity, and Internet famous social media users leveraging their follower base on social media to get endorsement deals. The First Amendment would suggest nothing for the government to interfere with in these arrangements, but of course that's not the way it works.

Regulations cover a wide range of commercial advertisement, and federal regulators are working hard to extend their remit online. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been particularly keen on this. Four years ago, they extracted a $500 million settlement from Google over ads for Canadian drugs shown in the U.S., and the FDA spent the last year plus working on guidance for advertising pharmaceuticals online, including social media.

On Friday, the FDA sent a warning letter (PDF) to drug company Duchesnay USA over a post Kim Kardashian made on Instagram about a morning sickness pill she was taking while pregnant. Kardashian said the pill made her feel better and that studies showed it doesn't put babies at risk. The FDA called the post misleading because it didn't include any of the risks—risks easily searchable online by anyone who came across Kardashian's post, which is online.

The drug company responded, saying it "takes its regulatory responsibilities very seriously, and acknowledges that its communications, including in social media as in this particular instance, need to be in accordance with applicable rules and regulations," but insisted Kardashian had found the drug through her doctor before the company offered an endorsement deal. Kardashian has deleted the post and the FDA wants the company to offer a correction that would reach the same Instagram users.

Meanwhile, on the same day, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled that the FDA could not prohibit companies from making truthful claims about unapproved drugs in their advertisements.

Related: The FDA vs. Commercial Speech

NEXT: Peak Oilers Shut Up Forever Please

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know who else was a drug intended to fight morning sickness in pregnant women?

    1. RU486?

        1. Did Chris Brown punch some pregnant chick in the stomach?

    2. What is Thalidomide, Alex. The thing that caused all those “flipper babies” and other deformities in the fifties and sixties.

      1. Oh that’s what that was for. I thought it was used to embalm Thalassians.

    3. Hitleridomide?

  2. They shouldn’t be messing with our future VP like that.


      1. I’m just reading the writing on the wall.

  3. What the hell kind of dope is this anti-American doper selling to our children?

    Well, we gotta protect the children. This Kardashian, she’s on the list, with Snowden. Snowden and Ron Paul. And that guy, that Mexican Chingaling fucker, slanty eyed doper fuck, you know, he was selling dope on playgrounds, used to be a funny guy… Chong, yeah, Tommy Chong, another dangerous anti-American terrorist. I bet this Kardashian… what the fuck kind of name is that? She one of them Greek ass sex sodomite anti-American terrorists? Put her on the fucking list! Save the children! We must have ORDER, RULEZ, AND REGULASHUNZ!

    You anarchist tea bagging, cop hating, anti-American dopers!

    1. Why do you think they call it DOPE??

  4. “a federal judge in Manhattan ruled that the FDA could not prohibit companies from making truthful claims about unapproved drugs in their advertisements.”

    He’ll never make SCOTUS with that attitude

    1. I’m not even sure how he made ‘judge’ period. Must have been good at keeping his mouth shut, or now he’s fallen and sustained a career ending head injury.

      1. Either that or the FDA hasn’t approved some drug he needs.

    2. Who cares? Doesn’t Reason, comment section, and food law guru Baylen, despise the FDA?

      1. I do.

      2. All of the work I do right now is medical research involved. I occasionally get into some off camera conversations about the FDA, with people who have to deal with them. And I haven’t heard anything positive yet.

      3. So, Heinlein, tell us from up there on luna, some good shit about the F’ah Dee of A.

  5. It’s times like these we libertarians are truly confronted with the hard choices of our principles. Here is a piece of human garbage, which any rational society would throw into the woodchipper. And yet as principled libertarians we stand by her right to say stupid shit. This is why we’re better than the rest of them.

    I’d still like to see her and the whole family killed by meteorites.

    1. Subpoena incoming.

    2. I don’t actually have an issue with them probably because I’ve never watched their show and have no idea what they are all about. I’ll see what I can do about your meteorite request but there is a lot of chance involved there.

      1. Talk to Auric and Pro L’ if you are needing a few space rocks.

  6. I can understand why that Florida tv anchor got pissed about Kim Kardashian.…..k-off-set/

  7. Wood chippering all around!

  8. Not a big fan of the FDA. A few years ago, they got jealous of the DEA and ran a sting operation on Amish farmers who sold raw milk and put them in prison. If that doesn’t equal out of control government, I don’t know what does.

  9. Anyone who takes product advise from a Kardashian deserves to die.

    1. ^^^This …somehow I don’t think many people will assume Kim K is an expert at anything, but I could be wrong.

  10. I would like to bounce on Kim K’s ass, using it like a trampoline. That is all.

  11. “takes its regulatory responsibilities very seriously” = “gets a huge boner from bossing other people around”

  12. The FDA kills millions of people every year through shear stupidity.

  13. Meh, this doesn’t bother me. If you’re going to tout the benefits of your drug direct to consumers you should disclose the side effects also. At the very least put a link to them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.