Bayer Schering Pharma: Multiple sclerosis corporate advert in The Economist ruled to promote a prescription-only medicine to the public

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/2135/6/08
Case referenceAnaesthetist v Bayer Schering Pharma
ComplainantAn anaesthetist
Respondent/companyBayer Schering Pharma
Product(s)Betaferon (interferon beta-1b)
Material/channelAdvertisement in The Economist (week of 23 June)
Key issueWhether a corporate-style MS advertisement in a public publication promoted a prescription-only medicine to the public and raised unfounded hopes
Dates (received/completed if stated)Complaint received 23 June 2008; Case completed 4 August 2008
AppealNot stated
Code yearNot stated
Breaches/clausesBreach of Clauses 20.1, 20.2 and 9.1; no breach of Clause 2
SanctionsNo explicit additional sanctions stated beyond the required undertaking/corrective actions described in the report

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
đź“‹

What happened

  • An anaesthetist complained about an advertisement placed in The Economist (week of 23 June) by Bayer Schering Pharma.
  • The advertisement was headed “Fighting Multiple Sclerosis” and included the Bayer corporate logo and the phrases “Science For A Better Life” and “Providing Hope”.
  • The text stated that Bayer had brought to market “the first therapy with long-term efficacy in significantly reducing the frequency of periods of exacerbation” in multiple sclerosis, and that it was investigating new therapies to give patients “a life full of hope for the future”.
  • Bayer Schering’s product Betaferon (interferon beta-1b) was indicated for treatment of certain types of multiple sclerosis.
  • The complainant alleged the advert referred to a medicine marketed by Bayer to treat MS and, although unnamed, provided enough information for a reader to request it from a doctor; this was alleged to be promotion of a medicine to the public.
  • The Authority asked Bayer Schering to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1, 20.1 and 20.2.
  • Bayer Schering said it did not consider it appropriate to encourage the public to ask their doctor to prescribe a specific medicine and did not accept the advert did so; it described internal local and global certification procedures and said the advert was intended as corporate promotion to a finance/politics readership, not to highlight a specific medicine.
⚖️

Outcome

  • The Panel considered The Economist was aimed at the public (not a health professional audience) and the advertisement needed to comply with Clause 20.
  • The Panel ruled the advertisement was not simply corporate promotion: it was clearly about MS, referred to Bayer Schering’s treatment for MS, and included clinical claims.
  • The Panel found the advertisement encouraged patients to ask their doctor to prescribe the Bayer product (a prescription-only medicine) and that “a life full of hope” raised unfounded hopes of successful treatment given MS was incurable.
  • Breach of Clause 20.2 was ruled.
  • On balance, the Panel considered the advertisement in effect constituted an advertisement for Betaferon to the public; breach of Clause 20.1 was ruled.
  • The Panel ruled high standards had not been maintained; breach of Clause 9.1 was ruled.
  • No breach of Clause 2 was ruled because the Panel did not consider the advertisement brought discredit on, or reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
ÂŁ249/year
Annual — save £99
or
ÂŁ29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free