The practice of dentistry, like other professions, calls for so much exercise of subjective personal judgment that claims about the quality of different dentists may be inherently incapable of verification. Furthermore, the choice of a dentist is a relatively important one. A distinction can be drawn between restrictions on information about standardized products and restrictions on claims that are inherently not susceptible of verification. The means used to achieve the legislative objective does not impair the freedom as little as possible. The effect of the legislative measure, furthermore, is not proportionate to the objective.
Useful information is restricted without justification.
The impugned section should be struck. The section is drafted in such a way that it cannot be amended by striking out those portions which are overly broad. Because the section is cast in the form of limited exclusions to a general prohibition, the Court would be required to supply further exceptions. The profession and legislators, however, are in the best position to determine the precise content and wording of such further exceptions as may be required. It is not impossible to draft regulations which prohibit advertising which is unverifiable and unprofessional while permitting advertising which serves a legitimate purpose in providing the public with relevant information.