AUTH/2116/4/08: General practitioner v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare – unsolicited promotional email (Gaviscon Advance)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2116/4/08
Case reference	General practitioner v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
Complainant	A general practitioner
Respondent/company	Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
Product(s)	Gaviscon Advance
Material/channel	Email (promotional email sent via an agency)
Key issue	Unsolicited promotional email sent after the complainant opted out; third-party agency failed to remove details from its database
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 21 April 2008; case completed 30 May 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	Clause 9.9
Sanctions	No explicit additional sanctions stated beyond the required undertaking/corrective actions described in the report

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

📋

⌄

A general practitioner complained that he continued to receive spam emails despite having opted out of an agency email service.
The complainant had previously complained about unsolicited promotional emails (Cases AUTH/2083/1/08, AUTH/2088/1/08 and AUTH/2089/1/08).
The email at issue promoted Gaviscon Advance and was sent on behalf of Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare via an agency.
The agency operated an opt-in system and stated that prior permission was sought before promotional material was sent electronically.
After the complainant requested removal from the agency database (29 January 2008), a junior staff member became confused and did not remove his details; further emails were then sent, including the sponsored element about Gaviscon Advance.
The agency sent the complainant a letter of apology and said it should take full responsibility for the misunderstanding, not Reckitt Benckiser.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel considered the email about Gaviscon Advance to be clearly promotional.
The Panel ruled that the email was unsolicited because the complainant had stated he did not want to receive promotional emails.
The Panel noted that companies are responsible under the Code for work undertaken by third parties on their behalf.
A breach of Clause 9.9 was ruled.

🔒

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