AUTH/2123/5/08: General practitioner v Sandoz – promotional email sent via agency (no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2123/5/08
Case reference	Email about Sandoz products
Complainant	General practitioner
Respondent/company	Sandoz Ltd
Product(s)	Fentanyl Mezolar Matrix; Fentalis Reservoir
Material/channel	Promotional email sent via an agency (with link to webpage containing article, product information and SPCs)
Key issue	Whether promotional emails were sent with the prior permission of the recipient; responsibility for third-party email activity
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 24 April 2008; Case completed 30 July 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	Clause 9.9: No breach
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 about large “junk” emails sent by/for Sandoz which filled clinical inboxes and slowed computers.
The complainant said attempts to stop receipt were unsuccessful because the sending agency used multiple email addresses that circumvented junk filters.
The Authority asked Sandoz to respond in relation to Clause 9.9 (use of email for promotional purposes).
Sandoz said the emails were part of a marketing activity delivered by an agency to NHS recipients who had consented to receive information via/from the agency.
Sandoz said the email included a link to a webpage with an independent article (pain therapy), additional information about Sandoz products (Fentanyl Mezolar Matrix and Fentalis Reservoir), and the SPCs for those products.
Sandoz said it relied on the agency to have obtained consent and, following the complaint, told the agency it had serious concerns about its database and records.
The Panel considered the email clearly promotional and noted companies are responsible under the Code for third parties acting on their behalf.
The Panel noted the agency’s opt-in wording had been clear since February 2008 that emails might include pharmaceutical promotional materials; wording before February 2008 was not clear on this point.
The Panel did not know when the complainant’s details were added to the database, and the complainant did not agree to have their identity revealed to Sandoz.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 9.9 was ruled because the Panel could not determine whether the complainant had given prior permission (it was unknown when the complainant’s details were added to the database and the complainant’s identity could not be disclosed to the company).

🔒

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