Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Urbuteit

Supreme Court of the United States
69 S. Ct. 112, 335 U.S. 355, 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2796 (1948)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Advertising matter sent separately from a product constitutes 'labeling' accompanying the product under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act if the product and literature are parts of an integrated distribution program and are functionally related.


Facts:

  • Fred Urbuteit, a naturopathic physician operating the Sinuothermic Institute in Florida, possessed electrical devices known as 'Sinuothermic' machines.
  • Urbuteit sold several of these machines to Kelsch, a former pupil living in Ohio, for use in treating patients.
  • As part of the transaction, Urbuteit contracted to provide Kelsch with leaflets titled 'The Road to Health.'
  • The leaflets claimed the machines could diagnose and cure diseases such as cancer, diabetes, tuberculosis, and paralysis.
  • Urbuteit shipped the machines and the leaflets from Florida to Ohio at different times.
  • The machines themselves bore only a patent mark and trade name, containing no instructions or medical claims.
  • Kelsch used the leaflets to explain the function and curative powers of the machines to his patients.
  • The United States government contended the leaflets were false and misleading labeling.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States filed a libel (seizure action) against the machines in the U.S. District Court.
  • Urbuteit appeared as the claimant to contest the seizure.
  • The District Court tried the case without a jury and ordered the machines condemned.
  • Urbuteit appealed the condemnation order to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment.
  • The United States petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does explanatory literature shipped separately from a medical device constitute 'labeling' that misbrands the device 'while in interstate commerce' under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, thereby authorizing its seizure?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Douglas

Yes, explanatory literature constitutes labeling under the Act even when shipped separately, provided the movements are part of a single interrelated activity. The Court reasoned that the problem is a practical one of consumer protection, not dialectics. Although the leaflets and machines were mailed at different times, they were functionally integrated because the leaflets provided the only explanation of the machine's use. The Act permits measuring 'labeling' by functional standards. Common sense dictates viewing the interstate transaction in its entirety; since the advertising served the purpose of labeling and was part of an integrated distribution scheme, it 'accompanied' the device within the meaning of the statute.


Dissenting - Justice Black

No, the statute should be strictly construed regarding the phrase 'while in interstate commerce.' The dissenters (Justices Black, Frankfurter, Murphy, and Jackson) referenced their dissent in the companion case Kordel v. United States. They argued that the specific seizure provision of the Act (§ 304(a)) has a different, narrower scope than the criminal provision, and that products held for sale or shipped separately should not be subject to seizure under the specific language 'while in interstate commerce.'



Analysis:

This decision, along with its companion case Kordel v. United States, significantly expanded the FDA's regulatory reach. By adopting a 'functional' rather than 'physical' definition of 'accompanying,' the Court prevented manufacturers from evading labeling regulations simply by shipping products and false claims in separate packages. This case is crucial for understanding the 'integrated transaction' doctrine in administrative law, establishing that courts will look at the economic reality and ultimate purpose of a business scheme rather than technical logistics when enforcing consumer protection statutes. It closes a potential loophole where manufacturers could separate the 'misbranding' from the 'product' to avoid seizure.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Urbuteit (1948)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"