GP v Pfizer: Exubera journal ad found misleading due to inhaler image scale (AUTH/1956/2/07)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1956/2/07
Complainant	General practitioner
Company	Pfizer Limited
Product	Exubera (inhaled insulin human)
Material	Full-page journal advertisement (ref EXU658M)
Publication	BMJ (16 Dec 2006; 2, 6 and 20 Jan 2007)
Main issue	Image/juxtaposition gave misleading impression of inhaler size (shown smaller scale than implied)
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clause(s)	Clause 7.8
Sanctions	Undertaking received
Complaint received	12 February 2007
Case completed	19 March 2007
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 a full-page BMJ journal advertisement (ref EXU658M) for Exubera (inhaled insulin human) issued by Pfizer.
The ad ran in the BMJ on 16 December 2006 and 2, 6 and 20 January 2007.
The ad used a large photo of a woman’s face and a separate photo of the Exubera inhaler, visually linked by a white band and the claim “The new look of insulin”.
The complainant alleged the inhaler image did not accurately convey how large/bulky the device was (he later saw it was “larger than a pint milk bottle”), and said he had assumed it was similar in size to common inhalers/sprays.
Pfizer argued the device image was shown in isolation and not intended to be to scale; it also noted MHRA pre-vetting and that representatives demonstrated the device to relevant HCPs.
The Panel considered readers would assume the two photos were to the same scale; they were not, and the inhaler was shown smaller relative to the patient image.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: the advertisement gave a misleading impression of the size of the inhaler; the artwork was misleading.
The Panel ruled a breach of Clause 7.8.
The Panel stated its ruling under Clause 7.8 covered Clause 7.2 (no separate finding recorded for 7.2).
No appeal.

🔒

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