Lilly ED TV disease-awareness campaign: no breach (AUTH/1864/7/06)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1864/7/06
Parties	Member of the public v Eli Lilly and Company Limited
Material	Television advertisement(s) on erectile dysfunction (ED), plus linked website/telephone line and booklet (“Man matters”)
Channel	TV (Sky Channel One) and website/telephone support materials
Main issue	Whether the TV advertisement amounted to advertising a prescription only medicine to the public and/or encouraged requesting a specific POM
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 20.1, 20.2
Decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	7 July 2006
Case completed	24 August 2006
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	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 member of the public complained about a Lilly television advertisement about erectile dysfunction (ED), seen on Sky Channel One around 26–27 June 2006.
The complainant believed the Lilly ICOS branding showed Lilly was promoting its ED treatment to the public on national TV, which they thought the Code should prevent.
The campaign included two TV advertisements referring to the incidence of erectile problems, noting ED could indicate underlying illness, and stating there were “over ten treatments available” without naming or describing them.
The TV ads directed viewers to a website (“Lovelifematters”) or a telephone number for more information, including a booklet (“Man matters”).
The website/booklet stated sponsorship by Lilly; the booklet mentioned treatments and named oral medicines without attaching significance to any one of them; the website did not name oral treatments but gave the generic name of one other medicine available as three different products.
The Authority asked Lilly to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1, 20.1 and 20.2 of the Code.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 20.1 (the TV advertisements were not considered advertisements for prescription only medicines to the public).
No breach of Clause 20.2 (information was considered factual and balanced and did not encourage the public to ask for a specific prescription only medicine).
No breach of Clauses 2 and 9.1 (given the findings above, the Panel ruled there could be no breach of these clauses).
Overall: No breach of the Code.

🔒

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