Doctor v Boehringer Ingelheim: Pradaxa promotional email sent without unsubscribe link (AUTH/2437/9/11)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2437/9/11
Parties	Doctor v Boehringer Ingelheim
Product	Pradaxa (dabigatran)
Material	Promotional email (ref DBG 2624)
Channel	Email (sent via third-party database provider)
Main issue	Email lacked an unsubscribe facility
Complaint received	21 September 2011
Case completed	31 October 2011
Applicable Code year	2011
Breach clauses	Clause 9.9
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received

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 medical director at a primary care service provider received a promotional email about Pradaxa (dabigatran) to his NHS email account (email ref DBG 2624).
The email was sent via a third-party database provider used for email campaigns; Boehringer Ingelheim had a contract (via another organisation) for Pradaxa email campaigns.
The complainant alleged the email was unsolicited, he had not provided his email address for pharma promotions, and he could not find any unsubscribe link.
Boehringer Ingelheim said the database was permission-based and that consent was obtained when the complainant registered; the registration email referenced receiving “medical and pharmaceutical promotional materials as well as official information”.
The Panel noted concerns about whether the registration email gave a bona fide choice (it was unclear you could receive “official information” but opt out of promotional material), but still concluded prior permission had been given by registering and not unsubscribing.
The unsubscribe facility was omitted from the Pradaxa email “in error” by the database provider; the unsubscribe option also did not appear in the version of the email certified by the company.

⚖️

⌄

No breach was ruled in relation to prior permission to receive promotional emails (the Panel considered permission had been given via registration and failure to unsubscribe).
Breach ruled: the promotional email did not include an unsubscribe facility as required.
The Panel described the absence of the unsubscribe option from the certified email as a “serious error”.

🔒

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