some, especially those in business, complain that the sarbanes-oxley act and similar legislation

lightbulb, idea, creativity @ Pixabay

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was enacted to make sure that corporations had to spend more time on the research and development side, so the act was originally enacted to help the pharmaceutical industry. However, the act created a lot of confusion for consumers as to how they could find out about the products that they were taking.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was enacted to make sure that corporations had to spend more time on the research and development side, so the act was originally enacted to help the pharmaceutical industry. However, the act created a lot of confusion for consumers as to how they could find out about the products that they were taking.Companies like Sarbanes-Oxley, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly each argue that they don’t have to provide the consumer information, but they do. The law requires that companies have to put a special notice on their websites that they are required to provide the information, but doesn’t require them to do more if they don’t already do it.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was enacted to make sure that corporations had to spend more time on the research and development side, so the act was originally enacted to help the pharmaceutical industry. However, the act created a lot of confusion for consumers as to how they could find out about the products that they were taking.Companies like Sarbanes-Oxley, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly each argue that they don’t have to provide the consumer information, but they do. The law requires that companies have to put a special notice on their websites that they are required to provide the information, but doesn’t require them to do more if they don’t already do it.In a nutshell, the bill requires drug companies to make information about their drug available to anyone interested who can get in contact with them directly. The companies say the law is a good thing, but it might just be a good thing for us. If a company doesnt require the information (which usually means requiring consumers to call the company to ask about their drug), then consumers have the option of getting this information by going to websites (such as www.drugs.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was enacted to make sure that corporations had to spend more time on the research and development side, so the act was originally enacted to help the pharmaceutical industry. However, the act created a lot of confusion for consumers as to how they could find out about the products that they were taking.Companies like Sarbanes-Oxley, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly each argue that they don’t have to provide the consumer information, but they do. The law requires that companies have to put a special notice on their websites that they are required to provide the information, but doesn’t require them to do more if they don’t already do it.In a nutshell, the bill requires drug companies to make information about their drug available to anyone interested who can get in contact with them directly. The companies say the law is a good thing, but it might just be a good thing for us. If a company doesnt require the information (which usually means requiring consumers to call the company to ask about their drug), then consumers have the option of getting this information by going to websites (such as www.drugs.But it is a bad thing for the companies and the consumers. They would like to make the information about drug companies public but the consumers have the option of not being able to get this information. Even worse, it is a law which, if it passes, would force companies to be more transparent about their products and services.

Published
Categorized as blog

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *