AUTH/2122/5/08: Anonymous ex-employee v Bayer Schering Pharma – Nebido advertisement (no breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2122/5/08
Case reference	Anonymous v Bayer Schering Pharma
Complainant	Anonymous ex-employee
Respondent/company	Bayer Schering Pharma
Product(s)	Nebido (long-acting testosterone injection)
Material/channel	Advertisement in the BMJ (published 3 May 2008)
Key issue	Alleged implied promotion for an unlicensed indication (suggesting men would become sexually attractive to younger women) via imagery
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 6 May 2008; Case completed 23 May 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	Clauses cited: 2, 3.2, 9.1; Outcome: No breach of the Code (no breach of 3.2 and 9.1; Clause 2 not ruled breached)
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous ex-employee complained about an advertisement for Nebido (long-acting testosterone injection) published in the BMJ on 3 May 2008.
The complainant alleged the ad implied Nebido would enable men to become sexually attractive to younger women, which was not a licensed indication.
The complaint focused on a photograph showing an older man apparently hailing a taxi with a younger-looking woman clutching his arm.
The complainant alleged breaches of Clauses 2, 3.2 and 9.1 of the Code.
Bayer Schering Pharma responded that the ad was a fair, accurate and balanced representation of treating male hypogonadism with Nebido and did not suggest increased attractiveness to younger women.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel did not consider the advertisement promoted Nebido for an unlicensed indication.
The Panel considered the photographs reflected positive effects of treating hypogonadism (including improvements in well-being and restoration of libido).
No breach of Clauses 3.2 and 9.1 was ruled.
Given the finding of no breach, the Panel did not consider the circumstances warranted a ruling of a breach of Clause 2.

🔒

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