ALK-Abelló: ‘Curing Allergy’ strapline in EpiPen Dear Doctor letter ruled an inaccurate, unsubstantiated product claim (AUTH/1966/2/07)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1966/2/07
Complainant	General practitioner
Company	ALK-Abelló Ltd
Product	EpiPen (adrenaline (epinephrine) auto-injector)
Material	‘Dear Doctor’ letter (ref 077E), headed “Expect the unexpected”
Issue	Strapline “Curing Allergy” in company logo on promotional letter
Panel view	Logo strapline was integral to promotional material and amounted to a product claim; implied EpiPen cured allergy; inaccurate and incapable of substantiation
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	Clauses 7.2 and 7.4
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	25 February 2007 (HTML) / 26 February 2007 (PDF)
Case completed	04 April 2007 (HTML) / 5 April 2007 (PDF)
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 the strapline “Curing Allergy” appearing in the company logo on a ‘Dear Doctor’ letter (ref 077E) promoting the EpiPen twin pack.
The letter (headed “Expect the unexpected”) discussed anaphylactic reactions; EpiPen is indicated for immediate self-administration in the emergency treatment of allergic anaphylactic reactions.
The complainant said there was no suggestion EpiPen cured anaphylaxis; it treated symptoms, and the strapline appeared dramatic and potentially untruthful/unsubstantiated.
ALK-Abelló said the strapline was inserted by the printer by mistake (replacing “United Kingdom”), and that internal sign-off processes had been followed; the letter was withdrawn and measures taken to prevent recurrence.
The Panel held that even though the strapline was part of a corporate logo, it was integral to the promotional material and therefore amounted to a product claim.
The Panel reiterated that companies are responsible for the acts and omissions of third parties acting on their behalf.

⚖️

⌄

The claim implied EpiPen cured allergy; the Panel ruled this was not so.
The claim was inaccurate and incapable of substantiation.
Breach of the Code was ruled (as acknowledged by ALK-Abelló).
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