AUTH/2541/11/12: GP v Napp — Flutiform email sent to NHS address (no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2541/11/12
Complainant	General practitioner (GP)
Company	Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited
Product	Flutiform (fluticasone/formoterol)
Channel	Email promotion to NHS email address (sent via third-party agency)
Issue	Alleged inappropriate promotional email/spam to NHS email; questioned compliance with email permission requirements
Applicable Code year	2012
Clauses considered	Clauses 9.1 and 9.9
Panel decision	No breach
Key rationale	Evidence the complainant had agreed to receive promotional emails; unsubscribe information provided; company responsible for third-party activity but consent was demonstrated
Complaint received	23 November 2012
Case completed	20 March 2013
Appeal	No appeal
Material reference	UK/FLUT-12106 (certified October 2012)

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 general practitioner (GP) received a promotional email advertisement for Flutiform (fluticasone/formoterol) to their NHS email address.
The GP complained that a publicly funded NHS email network should not be used for this type of advertising and raised concerns about undue influence and “spam”.
Napp stated the email was sent by a third-party agency it had contracted, and that the recipient had previously opted in/consented to receive promotional emails via that agency’s service.
The agency’s registration and re-registration process told healthcare professionals they would receive emails that could include pharmaceutical promotional material, and provided an unsubscribe option.
The Panel considered the email to be promotional and noted companies remain responsible for third parties acting on their behalf.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 9.9 (email promotion requires prior permission) because there was evidence the complainant had agreed to receive promotional emails.
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards) as a consequence of the finding under Clause 9.9.
No appeal.

🔒

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