AUTH/1973/3/07: General Practitioner v Bayer — SortEDin10 erectile dysfunction disease awareness campaign (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1973/3/07
Parties	General Practitioner v Bayer
Campaign/material	SortEDin10 erectile dysfunction (ED) disease awareness campaign (ads; later leaflets and website)
Main issue	Whether “SortEDin10” implied ED could be “sorted”/resolved in a single 10-minute GP consultation (misleading expectations)
Applicable Code year	2006
Clause(s) considered	Clause 20.2
Complaint received	09 March 2007
Case completed	27 April 2007 (HTML page lists completed 26 April 2007)
Appeal	No appeal
Decision	No breach
Sanctions	None stated

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

📋

⌄

The PMCPA Director noted a Financial Times article (17 Feb) criticising Bayer’s SortEDin10 erectile dysfunction (ED) disease awareness campaign and contacted the author (a general practitioner).
The GP then submitted a complaint alleging the ads encouraged men to think ED could be “sorted” in 10 minutes.
The complaint argued a typical 10-minute GP appointment would not cover the necessary assessment (physical exam, psychological issues, possible blood tests, follow-up), and that the messaging created unrealistic expectations for patients and doctors.
The Authority asked Bayer to respond in relation to Clause 20.2 (2006 Code).
Bayer said SortEDin10 was intended to encourage embarrassed patients to take the first step and see their GP; “10 minutes” reflected an average planned GP consultation and was not intended to mislead or raise unfounded hopes.
Bayer stated that for many men the first consultation could be productive, noting that a substantial proportion might receive treatment (including PDE5 inhibitors) at the first visit where appropriate.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 20.2: the Panel did not consider the public would believe ED would be completely resolved after one 10-minute consultation.

🔒

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