AUTH/2221/3/09: Public Health Registrar v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (Gaviscon Advance) – No breach of Clause 2 | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2221/3/09
Complainant	Public health registrar
Company	Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited
Product	Gaviscon Advance (sodium alginate and potassium bicarbonate)
Issue	Alleged Clause 2 breach based on cumulative recent Code breaches in promotion
Applicable Code year	2008
Complaint received	20 March 2009
Case completed	12 May 2009
Appeal	No appeal
Clauses considered in this case	Clause 2
Ruling	No breach of Clause 2

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

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A public health registrar complained that Reckitt Benckiser’s promotion of Gaviscon Advance (sodium alginate and potassium bicarbonate) had, due to cumulative recent Code breaches, brought discredit to and reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry (alleged Clause 2 breach).
The complaint relied on two earlier PMCPA cases about Gaviscon Advance materials in the BMJ:
- AUTH/2138/7/08: two advertisements ruled misleading (breach of the Code; breach of Clause 7.2 in each ad) due to clinical inferences drawn from in vitro data.
- AUTH/2205/2/09: a BMJ supplement reporting an advisory board was ruled to have breached the Code (breaches included Clauses 6.3, 7.2, 9.1, 12.1; and no breach of Clause 9.7 was ruled in that case, subject to an appeal at the time).
Reckitt Benckiser disputed that the earlier cases were connected or sufficiently serious/similar to amount to a Clause 2 breach, and described compliance actions (including training and process improvements).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 2 was ruled.
The Panel nevertheless expressed concern that the earlier cases suggested an apparent poor knowledge of Code requirements, and noted the company had initiated a compliance programme including in-house training by an external consultant.

🔒

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