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

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2123/5/08
Case reference	General practitioner v Sandoz
Complainant	A general practitioner
Respondent/company	Sandoz Ltd
Product(s)	Fentanyl Mezolar Matrix; Fentalis Reservoir
Material/channel	Promotional email sent by an agency on behalf of Sandoz, linking to a webpage with product information and SPCs
Key issue	Whether promotional emails were sent without prior permission; 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 Ltd which filled clinical inboxes and slowed computers.
The complainant said they had tried to stop receipt (including junk mail rules), but the agency used multiple email addresses which circumvented 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 linked to a webpage containing an independent article (pain therapy), additional information about Sandoz products (Fentanyl Mezolar Matrix and Fentalis Reservoir), and the SPCs for those products.
Sandoz stated 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 agency’s process described included telephone contact to obtain an email address for an access code to its NHS online directory service, followed by a confirmation email; emails also included an opt-out facility.
The Panel noted the complainant did not respond to a request to allow the Authority to reveal their identity to Sandoz, limiting what could be checked about consent timing/records.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel considered the email was clearly promotional material.
The Panel reiterated that companies are responsible under the Code for work undertaken by third parties on their behalf.
The Panel could not determine when the complainant’s details were added to the agency database (and therefore whether the relevant permission wording applied).
In the circumstances, the Panel considered there was nothing further that could be done and ruled no breach of Clause 9.9.

🔒

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