Genus Pharmaceuticals breached Clause 9.2 over “sexual/titillating” Cetraben ad imagery (AUTH/2503/5/12)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/2503/5/12
PartiesGeneral Practitioner v Genus Pharmaceuticals
ProductCetraben (white soft paraffin, light liquid paraffin)
MaterialAdvertisement in GP, 25 April 2012 (ref CET04121348B)
IssueAlleged offensive/degrading sexual and titillating imagery
Key creative elementsSkirt lifted by wind revealing underwear; headline about “Confidence… *However that might be”
Complaint received03 May 2012
Case completed02 July 2012
Applicable Code year2012
Breach clausesClause 9.2
AppealNo appeal
SanctionsUndertaking received

Download the full case report (PDF)


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
📋

What happened

  • A general practitioner complained about a Genus Pharmaceuticals advertisement for Cetraben (white soft paraffin, light liquid paraffin) published in GP on 25 April 2012 (ref CET04121348B).
  • The ad showed the back view of a young woman walking down a city street; wind appeared to lift her short skirt, revealing red-and-white polka dot underwear; she looked over her shoulder and appeared to gasp.
  • Headline: “Confidence to live life their way*” with “*However that might be”.
  • The GP alleged the ad was offensive and degrading due to its sexual and titillating picture.
  • Genus argued the campaign aimed to reflect eczema’s impact on self-esteem and confidence, and that the image was a light-hearted depiction of regained confidence (e.g., confidence to wear a skirt).
  • The Panel considered that “confidence” could have been portrayed without exposing underwear and found the exposure was suggestive and used to attract attention.
⚖️

Outcome

  • Breach found: the material was ruled likely to cause offence and did not recognise the special nature of medicines and the professional standing of the audience.
  • No appeal.
  • Sanctions applied: Undertaking received.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free