The brand-name form of sertraline, Zoloft, was widely advertised to consumers as "correcting a chemical imbalance", a claim not found in the FDA-approved product labeling. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent promoting Zoloft this way while it was still on-patent. Some have argued that this advertising may lead consumers to believe that they must take Zoloft to recover when in fact they may benefit from other non-medical treatments such as psychotherapy or exercise.

In the case of Hawkins v The Commonwealth (an Australian court case from the state of New South Wales), Zoloft was described as an important factor in David Hawkins' murder (through strangling) of his wife. Hawkins had been depressed, was prescribed 50 mg of Zoloft a day and on his first day of treatment took 250 mg. He claimed on the night of the murder that he couldn't sleep, was agitated and claimed he had hallucinations during the attack on his wife. As a result of this case Zoloft received a large amount of negative publicity, with questions being raised about its impact on behaviour.

In 2004, a Los Angeles nurse sued Pfizer as a private attorney general "on behalf of all California residents who have been misled about Zoloft", claiming the company covered up side effects.

A well-publicized essay published in the December 2005 issue of open access journal PLoS Medicine claimed the direct-to-consumer advertising for Zoloft has been very misleading and could well violate FDA regulations.