AUTH/2594/4/13: General practitioner v Lundbeck (Cipralex email via database agency) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2594/4/13
Complainant	General practitioner
Company	Lundbeck Limited
Product	Cipralex (escitalopram)
Material	Promotional email (ref UK/ESC/1303/0400) sent via electronic marketing/database agency
Issue	Whether the email was unsolicited/spam; compliance with prior permission requirement for promotional emails
Applicable Code year	2012
Clause(s) considered	Clause 9.9
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	12 April 2013
Case completed	4 June 2013
Appeal	No appeal

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 received an unsolicited-looking promotional email for Cipralex (escitalopram) (ref UK/ESC/1303/0400) in April 2013.
The email was sent by an electronic marketing/database agency on behalf of Lundbeck (not directly by Lundbeck).
The GP said they did not usually receive direct marketing about medicines and queried whether the email was “fishy/spammy”.
The PMCPA asked Lundbeck to respond in relation to Clause 9.9 (use of email for promotional purposes).
Lundbeck said the recipient had joined the database in 2007 and had opted in to receive promotional emails; details were verified annually (last verification September 2012).
The email included an unsubscribe link; the Panel noted it appeared to unsubscribe from Lundbeck emails, not necessarily all promotional emails sent by the database agency for other companies.

⚖️

⌄

🔒

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