Novo Nordisk email invite to Diabetes UK symposium: consent wording for promotional emails not “abundantly clear” (AUTH/2482/2/12)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2482/2/12
Parties	Anonymous v Novo Nordisk
Material	Email invitation to a satellite symposium; linked registration website
Event	Diabetes UK 2012 meeting (satellite symposium)
Products referenced	Victoza (liraglutide); “modern insulins” (insulin analogues discussed; Novo Nordisk marketed Levemir, NovoRapid, NovoMix)
Main issue upheld	Consent wording for receiving promotional material not “abundantly clear”
Breach clauses	9.9
No breach clauses	3.2, 4.1, 12.1, 22.1, 24.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received
Complaint received	25 February 2012
Case completed	24 May 2012
Appeal	Appeal by complainant (unsuccessful; Panel rulings upheld)
Applicable Code year	2011

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, contactable complainant received an email invitation (ref UK/DB/0112/0028b) to a Novo Nordisk satellite symposium at Diabetes UK 2012: “Weighing up the benefits: the practical use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and modern insulins in tackling type 2 diabetes”.
The complainant said they had subscribed to Novo Nordisk’s educational website (novomedlink.co.uk) but not to promotional messages, and found the email “disturbing”.
The invitation referenced GLP-1 receptor agonists and “modern insulins”, included online registration, and linked to Victoza (liraglutide) prescribing information.
The complainant alleged the symposium promoted off-label use of Victoza with insulin (Victoza was not licensed for use in combination with insulin at the time), and raised concerns that insulin prescribing information was not provided.
The complainant also alleged the registration website appeared open to the public and later argued that a related site (novonordisksymposium.com) was freely accessible and could appear in Google searches.
Novo Nordisk said NovoMedLink was password protected for health professionals, requiring professional registration details (eg GMC number or nurse equivalent), and that only those who ticked a box agreeing to receive information about products/services were emailed.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 9.9.
No breach: Clauses 3.2, 4.1, 12.1, 22.1 and 24.1.
The complainant appealed the “no breach” findings for Clauses 4.1, 12.1, 22.1 and 24.1; the Appeal Board upheld the Panel’s rulings (appeal unsuccessful).

🔒

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