AUTH/2542/11/12 & AUTH/2543/11/12: GP complaint about Trajenta promotional email to NHS address (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/2542/11/12 (Lilly) and AUTH/2543/11/12 (Boehringer Ingelheim)
Parties	General practitioner v Eli Lilly and Company Limited; Boehringer Ingelheim Limited
Product	Trajenta (linagliptin)
Channel	Email to NHS email address
Material	Promotional email highlighting availability of Trajenta webcasts
Complainant concern	Inappropriate use of NHS email network; alleged unauthorised promotional “spam” and breach of the Code
Applicable Code year	2011
Clauses considered	Clause 9.1 and Clause 9.9
Panel finding	No breach (evidence of prior permission/opt-in via third-party database)
Complaint received	29 November 2012
Case completed	20 March 2013
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None

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 an email to his NHS email address promoting Trajenta (linagliptin), highlighting a series of Trajenta webcasts run by the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Co Diabetes Alliance.
The GP complained that a publicly funded NHS email network should not be used for this type of advertising and that it amounted to unauthorised “spam”.
The email was disseminated by a digital communications agency using a database of UK medical professionals (stated to be independent of the Department of Health and the NHS).
The companies said the GP had registered with the database on 2 February 2012 and, during registration, was told he would receive emails that could include pharmaceutical promotional materials, with an opt-in/opt-out choice.
The Panel treated the email as promotional and noted that companies remain responsible for third parties acting on their behalf.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 9.9 (prior permission for promotional email) because there was evidence the GP had agreed to receive promotional material by email.
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards) as a consequence.
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