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; Unsolicited email
Complainant	Health professional
Respondent/company	Gilead Sciences Ltd
Product(s)	Not stated
Material/channel	Email (with attached letter)
Key issue	Unsolicited email to a personal address advertising a Gilead-sponsored fellowship programme; whether this breached restrictions on email promotion and high standards
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 the Gilead UK and Ireland Fellowship Programme; it did not relate to a particular product.
Gilead said the email was non-promotional, sent by the medical director to a broad group of health professionals, and the complainant’s address was inadvertently included.
Gilead said it sent an apology on 30 January 2009 confirming removal from the distribution list, but it appeared this did not reach the complainant.
The fellowship programme was described as a new initiative to largely replace an existing grants process, supporting best practice in HIV, invasive fungal disease and chronic hepatitis B.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the email was non-promotional and therefore there was no breach of Clause 9.9.
The Panel found that Gilead replied to the complainant’s removal request and considered high standards had been maintained; no breach of Clause 9.1 was ruled.
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