AUTH/2308/4/10: Media/Director v Norgine – undisclosed company role behind public letter on generic substitution

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2308/4/10
Parties	Media/Director v Norgine
Issue	Lack of sponsorship declaration / lack of transparency about company involvement in a published letter
Material	Letter in The Times (24 February 2010) titled “Patient wellbeing at risk from substituted generic medicines”
How case started	Complaint by the Director following a BMJ article (20 March)
Audience	Public (readers of The Times)
Code year	2008
Complaint received	06 April 2010
Case completed	13 August 2010
Appeal	Appeal by respondent; rulings upheld
Breach clauses	9.1, 9.10, 23.2 and 23.8
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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 BMJ article alleged a lack of transparency about Norgine’s role in a letter published in The Times (24 February 2010) titled “Patient wellbeing at risk from substituted generic medicines”.
The letter opposed proposed Department of Health changes that could allow automatic generic substitution and argued for prescribers’ choice of branded medicines.
The campaign was initiated and funded by Norgine and coordinated by its PR agency; Norgine underwrote the costs of producing the letter.
Potential signatories (clinicians and individuals linked to patient organisations) were identified by Norgine/its agency; the agency drafted the first version and coordinated revisions and sign-off.
No specific medicine was named in the letter, but it discussed branded vs generic medicines and implications for patients.
The published letter did not mention Norgine, and no one from Norgine signed it; readers were not told a pharmaceutical company had been involved.
The PMCPA Director took the matter up as a complaint (proceedings commenced 6 April 2010).

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the letter was not “promotion” but was within scope of the Code as information about prescription only medicines aimed at the public.
Breaches were ruled for lack of transparency/sponsorship disclosure and for not making company involvement clear when patient organisations were named.
Norgine appealed; the Appeal Board upheld the Panel’s rulings.

🔒

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