Anonymous v UCB: Website disclosures for patient organisation joint working and recertification dates (AUTH/2605/5/13)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2605/5/13
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable (described as a neurologist)
Company	UCB Pharma Ltd
Channel/material	UK corporate website (www.ucbpharma.co.uk)
Issues	(1) Alleged failure to declare support to a patient organisation; (2) Alleged failure to re-approve/recertify website content
Applicable Code year	2012
Clauses considered (as listed)	14.5, 14.1 and 23.7 (Panel discussion also referenced 18.5; and noted 23.8 but made no ruling on it)
Panel decision	No breach
Complaint received	21 May 2013
Case completed	9 July 2013
Appeal	No appeal
Additional sanctions	None 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

🎬 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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant (described as a neurologist) complained about two aspects of UCB Pharma Ltd’s UK corporate website (www.ucbpharma.co.uk).
Issue 1 (patient organisation support): The complainant alleged UCB failed to declare payments/benefits in kind to a UK patient organisation, citing support to a health board (via a patient organisation) involving provision of a specialist nurse to train health professionals.
UCB said the activity was a joint working project involving a patient group, a health board, another named pharmaceutical company and UCB, intended to improve epilepsy services.
UCB stated it had a written joint working agreement and had published an executive summary on its website under “Partners”.
UCB provided further details to the Panel that payments to the patient group were fee for service payments against invoices (not donations).
Issue 2 (website re-approval): The complainant believed the website should be approved and re-approved every two years, but in May 2013 it still showed an “approval date” of March 2011.
UCB explained the March 2011 footer code/date was the website commissioning reference, while each page also displayed a separate “Last update” date; only certain materials require certification/recertification under Clause 14.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 23.7 (as the complaint and request for response related to financial support declarations, whereas the payments at issue were characterised as fee for service and considered by the Panel to fall under Clause 23.8, which was not ruled upon).
No breach of Clause 18.5 (UCB had published an executive summary of the joint working agreement and the public declaration met the clause’s requirements).
No breach of Clauses 14.1 and 14.5 (the complainant did not demonstrate that relevant pages had not been recertified as required; the March 2011 date was not a Code certification date).

🔒

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