Anonymous v Genus and ProStrakan: Tabphyn MR ad ruled a “hanging comparison” on price claim (AUTH/1968/2/07, AUTH/1969/2/07)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/1968/2/07; AUTH/1969/2/07
Parties	Anonymous v Genus Pharmaceuticals Ltd and ProStrakan Group plc
Product	Tabphyn MR (tamsulosin)
Material	Journal advertisement (ref M014/042) in Prescriber, 5 February
Main claim at issue	“Spend fewer pennies on the treatment of BPH”
Issue	Hanging comparison / alleged misleading price claim
Panel findings	Breach Clause 7.2 (hanging comparison); no breach regarding use of publicly available NHS list prices for comparison
Responsibility	Genus held jointly responsible with ProStrakan due to how the ad presented Genus’ role (further info, med info and AE reporting)
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	28 February 2007
Case completed	AUTH/1968/2/07: 15 May 2007; AUTH/1969/2/07: 13 April 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

📋

⌄

An anonymous complainant challenged a Prescriber journal advertisement (5 February) for Tabphyn MR (tamsulosin) featuring the claim: “Spend fewer pennies on the treatment of BPH”.
The complainant alleged the claim was a hanging comparison and misleading, citing a non-public price list showing another tamsulosin MR product (Stronazon) at £3.69 (invoice) / £3.32 (promotional) per pack.
Genus stated it was the marketing authorisation holder and had licensed the product to ProStrakan on 10 March 2006; Genus said it had no involvement in promotion after March 2006 and no knowledge of the ad (prepared December 2006).
ProStrakan said that at approval, one month’s treatment with Tabphyn MR was £7.99 and MIMS (Feb 2007) listed generic tamsulosin at £8.68; it relied on NHS official list prices and said the complainant’s price list was not public.
The Panel noted the ad carried ProStrakan branding (logo and website) and also directed “Further information” plus medical information enquiries and adverse event reports to Genus, giving the impression Genus had an ongoing role beyond MAH.

⚖️

⌄

Breach: Clause 7.2 for a hanging comparison (the claim did not make clear what it was being compared with).
No breach: The Panel did not find the price comparison approach itself unreasonable where based on publicly available NHS list prices (even if lower non-public prices might exist).
Genus was considered jointly responsible with ProStrakan for the advertisement under the Code.
ProStrakan withdrew promotional materials containing the claim.

🔒

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