Janssen-Cilag schizophrenia awareness ad: “real chance of recovery” ruled misleading to the public (AUTH/1942/1/07)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/1942/1/07
Complainant	Member of the public
Company	Janssen-Cilag Ltd
Material	Disease awareness campaign on schizophrenia; lay press advertisement in The Big Issue and linked website (oneinonehundred.co.uk)
Main issue upheld	“With modern treatments there’s now a real chance of recovery” could be understood by lay readers as elimination of illness; misleading/raised unfounded hope
Breach clauses	Clause 20.2
No breach clauses considered	Clauses 20.1, 20.2 (other allegations), 9.1, 2
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	15 January 2007
Case completed	21 March 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
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 member of the public complained about a schizophrenia disease-awareness advertisement placed by Janssen-Cilag in The Big Issue (Christmas 2006 edition).
The ad stated: “Schizophrenia can be very difficult to live with. But the good news is, with modern treatments there’s now a real chance of recovery. So it’s very important to discuss with your doctor the choices available”.
The ad directed readers to a Janssen-Cilag sponsored website (oneinonehundred.co.uk).
The complainant alleged the “real chance of recovery” claim was misleading/untrue and implied a link to Janssen-Cilag medicines (Risperdal / Risperdal Consta).
The complainant also alleged the website promoted a prescription-only medicine via underlined terms (“atypical antipsychotics”, “long-acting injections”), claimed atypicals were superior/benign, made unproven statements about causes (“disease of the mind”, brain processing abnormalities), made an untrue relapse-prevention claim, and included a “Brainchip” link alleged to be sinister.
The Authority asked Janssen-Cilag to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1, 20.1 and 20.2.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 20.2 for the advertisement claim implying a “real chance of recovery” (misleading/raised unfounded hope for a lay audience).
No breach of Clauses 20.1 and 20.2 regarding promotion of a specific prescription-only medicine to the public (the ad did not directly or impliedly reference a specific medicine; multiple “modern” options exist).
No breach of Clauses 20.1 and 20.2 regarding the website’s underlining/glossary links (not considered undue emphasis or promotion of a specific medicine).
No breach of Clause 20.2 regarding: “ask your doctor if any of the newer treatments…” (site acknowledged side effects); “disease of the mind”/brain references; relapse-risk statement; and the “Brainchip” link.
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards) and consequently No breach of Clause 2 (discredit), though the Panel noted the campaign was biased towards atypical antipsychotics and expressed concerns about the “newer treatments” prompt potentially encouraging switching in stable patients.

🔒

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