AUTH/1848/6/06: Janssen-Cilag held responsible for PR agency offering £200 to journalists to attend NICE hearing

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1848/6/06
Parties	Media/Director v Janssen-Cilag
Product	Eprex (epoetin alfa)
Issue	PR agency offered journalists £200 to attend a NICE appeal hearing
Complaint source	PR Week article (“in NICE apology for media cash carrot”)
Applicable Code year	2003
Breach clauses	2, 9.1 and 19.1
Key reasoning	Company responsible for actions/omissions of agents acting on its behalf; insufficient local clarity and oversight; verbal assumptions/training not enough; pre-use submission of materials might have prevented the issue
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Advertisement
Dates	Complaint received 19 June 2006; Proceedings commenced 20 June 2006; Case completed 25 September 2006 (site lists completed 24 September 2006)

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 PR Week article reported that, ahead of a NICE appeal hearing, a PR company emailed reporters offering £200 if they attended the hearing.
The hearing related to NICE’s rejection of erythropoietins for chemotherapy-induced anaemia; Eprex (epoetin alfa) was referenced as a Janssen-Cilag product.
Janssen-Cilag said it was unaware of the offer and that it was an unauthorised act by an individual at the PR company, contrary to policy and contractual terms.
NICE’s chairman publicly condemned the financial incentive; the PR company retracted and apologised, stating the client did not know and would not have sanctioned it.
The PMCPA considered the PR company was acting as Janssen-Cilag’s agent; therefore Janssen-Cilag was responsible under the Code.
Janssen-Cilag appealed the findings under Clauses 2 and 9.1 (it accepted the Clause 19.1 breach).

⚖️

⌄

Breach found (Applicable Code year: 2003).
Panel ruled breaches of Clauses 2, 9.1 and 19.1.
On appeal, the Appeal Board upheld the Panel’s rulings for Clauses 2 and 9.1 and noted Janssen-Cilag had accepted the Clause 19.1 breach.
Appeal Board found there was insufficient local clarity on the PR agency’s responsibilities under the UK Code and that Janssen-Cilag had not actively managed the agency or taken all reasonable steps to prevent a breach.

🔒

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