AUTH/2208/2/09: Health professional v Gilead Sciences – unsolicited email about fellowship programme (no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2208/2/09
Case reference	Health professional v Gilead Sciences
Complainant	Health professional
Respondent/company	Gilead Sciences Ltd
Product(s)	Not stated
Material/channel	Unsolicited email (with attached letter) about the Gilead UK and Ireland Fellowship Programme
Key issue	Use of a private email address for an unsolicited email; whether the email was promotional and whether high standards were maintained in handling removal request
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 16 February 2009; Case completed 23 March 2009
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	No breach of Clause 9.9; No breach of Clause 9.1
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 health professional complained he received an unsolicited email from Gilead Sciences Ltd and said he had not provided his email address to Gilead.
He asked Gilead how it obtained his personal email address and requested confirmation it would be removed from the mailing list; he said he received no reply.
The email advertised a Gilead-sponsored UK and Ireland Fellowship Programme (intended to largely replace an existing grants process) and referred to HIV, invasive fungal disease and chronic hepatitis B, but did not mention any specific products.
Gilead said the email was non-promotional, sent by the medical director to a broad group of health professionals, and that the complainant’s address was inadvertently included in the distribution list.
Gilead stated it sent an apology on 30 January 2009 confirming removal from the distribution list, but believed this did not reach the complainant.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the email was non-promotional and therefore there was no breach of Clause 9.9 (email use for promotional purposes without prior permission).
The Panel also ruled no breach of Clause 9.1, noting that Gilead replied on 30 January 2009 stating the complainant’s details would be removed from the medical director’s business contacts list and that high standards had been maintained in this regard.
Overall outcome: No breach of the Code.

🔒

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