Later, in 1982, Zauderer took another advertisement in several Ohio newspapers, this time offering his services on a contingent-fee basis for any women that may have been injured by the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device.

His ad included an illustration of the Dalkon Shield, and descriptive language of the alleged injuries that women may have suffered from the device.

Among several complaints, the Office specifically called to the illustration and language that Zauderer used within the Dalkon ad as failing to be "dignified".

Other violations asserted by the state including the misleading information on the drunk driving ad, how he offered his services in the Dalkon ad, and choice of language to represent his contingent-fee basis, including omission that clients may still be liable for costs, in and above attorney fees, even if they would lose the case.

The principal matter of Zauderer centered on the requirement of Ohio's Disciplinary Rules for disclosure of contingent-fee arrangements.

This test employs the "purely factual and uncontroversial information" language from the Zauderer decision to judge if such disclosure requirements are constitutional compelled commercial speech.

Such cases include: The Supreme Court case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra 585 U.S. ___ (2018) established that there is a limit to how much Zauderer can apply; the Court ruled that required signage to be posted at crisis pregnancy centers notifying potential patients of state-provided abortion services did not fall under the Zauderer standard as it was unjustified and imposed a burden on a specific targeted set of speakers.

[12] The appeals court reconsidered and reaffirmed its previous conclusion, stating that Berkeley's warning is “literally true,” promotes public health and does not require retailers to post messages that violate their beliefs.