AstraZeneca breached Clause 9.9 after GP received unsolicited promotional email about Crestor via an agency (AUTH/2088/1/08)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2088/1/08
Complainant	General practitioner (GP)
Company	AstraZeneca
Product	Crestor (rosuvastatin)
Issue	Unsolicited promotional email sent to NHS email address via an agency
Applicable Code year	2006
Complaint received	25 January 2008
Case completed	29 February 2008
Breach clauses	Clause 9.9
Outcome	Breach ruled
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

📋

⌄

A general practitioner (GP) received an unsolicited email about Crestor (rosuvastatin) to their NHS email address.
The GP said they had not knowingly signed up to receive information from AstraZeneca (or any pharma company) and considered the email unwelcome “SPAM”.
AstraZeneca said it commissioned an agency (one-off) to distribute an “educational email on hyperlipidaemia” to primary care physicians who had subscribed (opted-in) to the agency’s service.
The agency’s opt-in process involved an initial telephone call and a confirmatory email stating it would send information about “affiliates’ products and services” including “pharmaceutical and promotional materials”.
The Panel considered the Crestor email to be clearly promotional and noted companies remain responsible for third parties acting on their behalf.
The Panel found the agency wording did not make it abundantly clear that promotional material from pharmaceutical companies would be sent, and that describing pharma companies as the agency’s “affiliates” was misleading.
The Panel concluded there was no evidence the complainant had given prior, fully informed consent to receive promotional emails from a pharmaceutical company.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: Yes.
The email was found to be unsolicited promotional material sent without prior permission.
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