GSK and Roche: Bonviva ‘Building Bones’ ad reappeared in Pulse, breaching an undertaking (AUTH/2049/9/07 & AUTH/2050/9/07)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/2049/9/07 and AUTH/2050/9/07
Companies	GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd; Roche Products Limited
Product	Bonviva (ibandronic acid)
Issue	Breach of undertakings not to use the claim “Building Bones” after 13 June 2007; ad reappeared in Pulse on 20 September 2007
How it came to PMCPA	Voluntary admission treated as a complaint (breach of undertaking regarded as serious)
Publication/channel	Pulse (journal advertisement)
Complaint received	27 September 2007
Completed	25 October 2007 (AUTH/2049/9/07); 29 October 2007 (AUTH/2050/9/07)
Applicable Code year	2008
Clauses breached	Clause 22
Clauses not breached	Clauses 2 and 9.1
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

📋

⌄

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Roche had previously given undertakings (in Cases AUTH/1971/3/07 and AUTH/1972/3/07) not to use the Bonviva (ibandronic acid) claim/strapline “Building Bones” after 13 June 2007.
In line with SOPs, the sales force was instructed to withdraw all promotional materials containing the claim and return them to head office for destruction.
Agencies and publishing companies were instructed to withdraw, destroy and stop using the Bonviva journal advertisement containing the claim; email confirmations were received.
Despite this, an advertisement containing “Building Bones” appeared in Pulse on 20 September 2007.
Investigation indicated Pulse’s publisher had not destroyed the copy as requested; the ad remained on the publisher’s system and was reused by a production contact without instruction from GSK or Roche.
Both companies voluntarily admitted the breach of their undertaking; the PMCPA treated the admission as a complaint because breach of an undertaking is regarded as serious.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: Clause 22.
No breach ruled: Clauses 2 and 9.1.
The Panel considered GSK and Roche had taken all possible steps to comply and had been “badly let down” by Pulse, but still had “no option” other than to rule a breach because the undertaking had been breached.
The Panel did not consider that GSK and Roche had failed to maintain high standards or brought discredit upon/reduced confidence in the industry in the circumstances.

🔒

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