AUTH/1866/7/06: Daiichi-Sankyo voluntary admission after withdrawn Olmetec advert reappeared (breach of undertaking)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/1866/7/06
Company	Daiichi-Sankyo UK Ltd (formerly Sankyo)
Product/material	Olmetec advertisement (OLM 188.1B)
Issue	Advertisement previously ruled in breach reappeared despite an undertaking not to use it again (breach of undertaking)
Where it appeared	May/June edition of the British Journal of Cardiology
Undertaking date	Signed 16 February 2006; undertaking not to use after 19 February 2006
Complaint received	12 July 2006 (HTML) / 13 July 2006 (PDF)
Case completed	28 August 2006 (HTML) / 29 August 2006 (PDF)
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	2, 9.1 and 22
Sanctions applied	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Advertisement
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

📋

⌄

Daiichi-Sankyo (formerly Sankyo) voluntarily told the PMCPA that an Olmetec advertisement (OLM 188.1B) previously ruled in breach (AUTH/1787/12/05) had reappeared.
The company had given an undertaking not to use the advertisement after 19 February 2006 (undertaking signed 16 February 2006).
The advert was published again in error in the May/June edition of the British Journal of Cardiology (company first became aware on 29 June 2006 and alerted the Authority on 30 June).
Between the undertaking and the re-publication, the company changed advertising agency; multiple parties were involved (previous agency, new agency, media buyer, and publisher workflows).
The Panel found there was no clear instruction to agencies/publishers to destroy or return old versions; merely instructing “do not use” was not sufficient.

⚖️

⌄

Treated as a formal complaint because it involved a breach of undertaking (serious matter).
The Panel ruled Daiichi-Sankyo had not taken all possible steps to comply with its undertaking and that high standards had not been maintained.
The Panel ruled the company’s failure brought discredit upon, and reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.

🔒

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