Abbott breached ABPI Code after Hidrasec ads appeared on Facebook (public promotion of POM)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2576/2/13
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable general practitioner
Company	Abbott Healthcare Products Limited
Product	Hidrasec (racecadotril)
Main issue	Hidrasec advertisements visible on Facebook (open access), effectively promoting a POM to the public
Other issues considered	Mode of action video caption online; absence of inverted black triangle; paediatric claim wording
Applicable Code year	2012
Complaint received	6 February 2013
Case completed	17 April 2013
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1; Clause 22.1; Clause 22.2
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 3.2; Clause 4.11; Clause 7.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions not stated

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous GP found Hidrasec (racecadotril) advertisements visible on Facebook and complained that the public could see promotion for a prescription-only medicine (POM).
The Facebook content appeared on a UK-based photographer’s portfolio page; Abbott global had supplied campaign images for portfolio use.
The Panel questioned whether Abbott global realised the supplied files included promotional text and whether it had checked how/where the material would be used.
A separate “Hidrasec Mode of Action” video was found on an animator’s professional website; the only product reference was in the caption beneath the video.
The complainant also alleged (a) absence of an inverted black triangle on ads and (b) an inappropriate paediatric claim (“provides rapid control for even your smallest patients”).
Abbott said it became aware of the Facebook issue on 8 November 2012, asked its agency to remove the images, investigated, and retrained relevant UK and global staff.

⚖️

⌄

Breach: Facebook placement of Hidrasec advertisements was ruled to be promotion of a POM to the public and to encourage the public to ask a health professional to prescribe it.
No breach: The “mode of action” video complaint (Panel could not verify content; only caption referenced Hidrasec; video removed).
No breach: Absence of inverted black triangle (complaint not proven on balance of probabilities; MHRA pre-vetting did not request it; product added to list later; Abbott acted quickly once aware).
No breach: Claim “provides rapid control for even your smallest patients” (considered within context “licensed in infants older than 3 months” and consistent with SPC; not misleading).
No breach: Clause 2 (Panel said Clause 2 is reserved for particular censure and did not apply here).

🔒

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