AUTH/1831/4/06: GP v Janssen-Cilag — Durogesic DTrans promotional email (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1831/4/06
Complainant	General practitioner
Company	Janssen-Cilag Ltd
Product	Durogesic DTrans (fentanyl patches)
Issue	Allegedly unsolicited promotional email; perceived misuse of NHS net
Channel	Email via an agency (ehealthinfo.co.uk)
Incentive mentioned	Survey invitation and free 64mb memory stick
Clause(s) considered	Clause 9.9
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	24 April 2006
Case completed	8 August 2006
Applicable Code year	2003
Appeal	No appeal

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A general practitioner complained about an email promoting Durogesic DTrans (fentanyl patches), sent via an agency on behalf of Janssen-Cilag.
The GP said the email was unsolicited and appeared to be misuse of the NHS net for advertising.
The email was from the product manager, invited recipients to take part in a survey, and offered a free 64mb memory stick.
The Authority asked Janssen-Cilag to respond in relation to Clause 9.9.
Janssen-Cilag said the email was only sent to health professionals who had given prior permission to receive promotional material electronically.
Janssen-Cilag described its contract with the agency: the agency would obtain necessary permissions (including Data Protection Act and Code requirements), record how/when permission was obtained, and ensure permission could be traced on an individual basis if required.
The agency stated the sending address (ehealthinfo.co.uk) was not an NHS email address.
The Panel sought permission to reveal the complainant’s identity to Janssen-Cilag so it could check consent records; no response was received from the complainant.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel noted the parties’ accounts differed (unsolicited vs opted-in) and it was impossible to know where the truth lay.
No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 9.9 was ruled.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access