Bayer: Product launch tweets for Levitra and Sativex accessible to the public (AUTH/2402/4/11)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2402/4/11
Parties	Journalist v Bayer
Products	Levitra (vardenafil); Sativex (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol)
Channel	Twitter (UK/Ireland account), accessible by members of the public
Issue	Product-specific tweets about POM launches; tweets not certified; public accessibility
Tweet dates	Levitra: 22 March 2011; Sativex: 21 June 2010
Complaint received	28 April 2011
Case completed	03 June 2011
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	2, 9.1, 22.1 (x2) and 22.2 (x2)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Advertisement
Appeal	No appeal

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 journalist shared an InPharm article (“Digital Pharma: Bayer UK’s Twitter slip-up”) highlighting two Bayer Healthcare tweets about prescription-only medicines (POMs) and asking whether they breached the Code.
The tweets were posted from Bayer’s UK/Ireland Twitter channel, which was accessible by members of the public (and some followers were clearly members of the public).
The tweets were taken from the headlines of certified press releases and posted on the same days as those releases, but the tweets themselves were not certified.
Tweet examples cited in the article included:
- Levitra: “First & only melt-in-the-mouth erectile dysfunction treatment launched by Bayer today …” (22 March 2011).
- Sativex: “Savitex launched in UK for the treatment of spasticity due to Multiple Sclerosis …” (21 June 2010).
Bayer accepted the tweets constituted advertising to the public and an encouragement to request a specific medicine (Clauses 22.1 and 22.2).

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the tweets were public announcements promoting POM launches and would encourage members of the public to ask health professionals to prescribe them.
Breaches were ruled for public advertising of POMs and for failure to maintain high standards.
The Panel also ruled a serious concern under Clause 2 because uncertified POM launch information was posted on Twitter, a medium where content can be rapidly disseminated.

🔒

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