AUTH/2192/12/08: Pfizer voluntary admission—withdrawn Lipitor “fireman” ad re-published (breach of undertaking)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2192/12/08
Company	Pfizer Limited
Product/material	Lipitor journal advertisement (“fireman”)
Issue	Previously ruled-breach ad re-published after an undertaking was signed
Publication	Practitioner (November 2008 edition)
Complaint received	15 December 2008
Case completed	18 March 2009
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses (final)	Clause 25
Other clauses considered	Clause 2 (no breach); Clause 9.1 (no breach on appeal)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Related prior case	AUTH/2093/1/08 (ad found in breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.10 in May 2008)

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

📋

⌄

Pfizer voluntarily admitted it had breached the undertaking and assurance given in Case AUTH/2093/1/08 after the Lipitor “fireman” journal advertisement (previously ruled in breach in May 2008) was published again in the November 2008 edition of Practitioner.
The undertaking in the earlier case was signed on 15 May 2008.
Pfizer said it had followed internal processes to prevent re-use, including instructing parties to withdraw and destroy copies and obtaining signed confirmations.
Despite an email from Pfizer’s creative design agency instructing the healthcare media company to run the replacement “fisherman” ad (with the correct PDF attached), the healthcare media company published the withdrawn “fireman” ad due to an internal production communication breakdown.
The PMCPA treated the admission as a complaint because breach of an undertaking is a serious matter.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 25 (breach of undertaking/assurance) — Pfizer did not appeal this.
Initially found then overturned on appeal: Clause 9.1 (high standards) — Appeal Board ruled no breach of Clause 9.1.
No breach: Clause 2 — Panel did not consider the circumstances warranted Clause 2 censure.
Appeal by Pfizer was successful in relation to Clause 9.1.

🔒

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