Goldshield: unsolicited promotional email sent via agency to NHS email address (MacroBid)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2089/1/08
Case reference	Not stated
Complainant	General practitioner
Respondent/company	Goldshield Pharmaceuticals
Product(s)	MacroBid (nitrofurantoin)
Material/channel	Unsolicited promotional email sent via an agency to an NHS email address
Key issue	Promotional email sent without evidence of prior, fully informed permission; company responsibility for third-party agency activity; clarity of consent wording
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received: 25 January 2008; Undertaking received: 14 July 2008; Case completed: 16 July 2008
Appeal	Yes — Goldshield appealed; appeal unsuccessful and breach upheld
Code year	2006 (Constitution and Procedure referenced); Code year otherwise not stated
Breaches/clauses	Clause 9.9
Sanctions	Required undertaking/assurance (provided late); referred to Appeal Board for failure to provide undertaking on time; warning about future compliance and potential removal from list of non-members that complied with the Code

Download the full case report (PDF)

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

📋

What happened

⌄

A general practitioner complained that Goldshield Pharmaceuticals, via an agency, sent an unsolicited email about MacroBid (nitrofurantoin) to his NHS email address.
The GP said he had not knowingly signed up to receive information from Goldshield or any pharmaceutical company and considered the email unwelcome; he said an unsubscribe option did not excuse the activity.
Goldshield said it sponsored four “educational emails” produced and sent by an agency to health workers on the agency’s database; two had been sent (September 2007 on pain management; January 2008 on urinary tract infection in the community—the email in question).
Goldshield said the agency obtained permission through a two-step process: a telephone script describing that the agency would email details about its “affiliates’ products and services” which might include “medical, pharmaceutical and promotional materials,” followed by a confirmatory email and access-code registration.
The Panel considered the MacroBid email was clearly promotional and noted companies are responsible under the Code for work undertaken by third parties on their behalf.
The Panel found the agency’s wording did not make it abundantly clear that promotional material from pharmaceutical companies would be sent, and that describing pharmaceutical companies as the agency’s “affiliates” was misleading in context.
On appeal, the Appeal Board noted no documentation specific to the complainant was provided to show he was telephoned and gave fully informed and explicit permission to receive pharmaceutical promotional material by email.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

The Panel ruled a breach of Clause 9.9 (use of email for promotional purposes without prior permission).
Goldshield appealed; the Appeal Board upheld the breach on the balance of probabilities and the appeal was unsuccessful.
The Authority later reported Goldshield to the Appeal Board because it failed to provide the requisite undertaking and assurance within the required timeframe; an amended signed undertaking was subsequently provided.
The Appeal Board decided not to take further action at that stage because Goldshield had stopped the activity in question, but warned it must comply with the Constitution and Procedure in future or risk removal from the list of non-members that complied with the Code.

🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Unlock the full case analysis

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown