AUTH/2048/9/07: Grünenthal – breach of undertaking after old Versatis ad reappeared in Pulse | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2048/9/07
Company	Grünenthal Ltd
Product	Versatis (lidocaine medicated plaster)
Issue	Breach of undertaking/assurance after an old journal advertisement reappeared
Publisher/journal	Pulse
Old headline (previously ruled in breach)	“New for burning, shooting, stabbing, pains”
Revised headline identifier	“New for the burning, shooting stabbing pains of post-herpetic neuralgia”
Incorrect re-publications	Pulse editions 13 September 2007 and 20 September 2007
Correct publications after revision	26 April; 3, 17 and 24 May 2007 (Pulse)
Complaint received	27 September 2007
Case completed	25 October 2007
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	Clause 22
No breach clauses	Clause 9.1; Clause 2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
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

📋

⌄

In an earlier case (AUTH/1960/2/07), a Versatis (lidocaine medicated plaster) journal advertisement was ruled in breach for the headline claim: “New for burning, shooting, stabbing, pains”.
Grünenthal gave an undertaking/assurance not to use the advertisement again (undertaking provided 3 April 2007).
Grünenthal (via its agency) instructed the publisher (Pulse) by email to destroy old electronic copies (PDF) and replace them with a revised version; the email explained the revised headline: “New for the burning, shooting stabbing pains of post-herpetic neuralgia”. A hard copy followed by post.
Pulse published the updated (compliant) advertisement in April and May 2007 (26 April; 3, 17 and 24 May).
Pulse later reverted to the old version and published it again in the 13 and 20 September 2007 editions.
Investigations indicated Pulse did not destroy the old PDF and did not follow its own internal checking procedures before print (confirmed in writing by the head of client services).
Grünenthal notified the publisher immediately on discovering the 13 September appearance, but it was too late to prevent the 20 September repeat.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 22 ruled (breach of undertaking).
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards) ruled.
No breach of Clause 2 (discredit to the industry) ruled.
The Panel considered Grünenthal had taken steps to comply, but could have made instructions more explicit (eg, emphasising inclusion of “post-herpetic neuralgia” and explaining the change followed a Code ruling), and had not sought confirmation that the old version was destroyed.

🔒

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