Gedeon Richter: third-party event tweets held to promote a POM to the public (AUTH/2612/6/13)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number

AUTH/2612/6/13
Complainant	Ex-employee
Company	Gedeon Richter
Product	Esmya (ulipristal acetate)
Issue	Third-party tweets about meetings; whether they promoted a prescription only medicine to the public
Channel	Twitter (tweets by an events company engaged by Gedeon Richter)
Key dates (tweets)	9 November 2012; 22 November 2012
Complaint received	18 June 2013
Case completed	5 August 2013
Applicable Code year	2012
Clauses considered	Clauses 2, 9.1 and 22.1
Findings	22 Nov tweet: no breach. 9 Nov tweet: breach of Clause 22.1; breach of Clause 9.1; breach of Clause 2.
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Advertisement
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

📋

⌄

An ex-employee complained about two tweets posted by an events company engaged by Gedeon Richter.
Gedeon Richter marketed Esmya (ulipristal acetate) for the pre-operative treatment of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids in adult women of reproductive age.
Tweet 1 (9 Nov 2012): “Register for the event ‘Sharing surgical experience after the use of ulipristal acetate in fibroid patients’”.
Tweet 2 (22 Nov 2012): “Places available at the Nottingham symposium on uterine fibroids”.
The Panel treated the complaint narrowly as being about the wording of the tweets themselves (not the invitations/meetings linked to them).
Gedeon Richter said the tweets were sent without its knowledge/authority; it removed them once aware and said no further tweets about its events had been issued since.
The Panel noted Gedeon Richter could not identify a contract or similar document setting out the events company’s role/responsibilities for the materials at issue.

⚖️

⌄

22 Nov tweet: Not considered to advertise a prescription only medicine to the public; no breach of Clause 22.1 (and therefore no breach of Clauses 2 and 9.1 for that tweet).
9 Nov tweet: Ruled promotional because it named a prescription only medicine (ulipristal acetate) and referred to a potential use (in fibroid patients); breach of Clause 22.1.
Company responsibility for third party activity: high standards not maintained; breach of Clause 9.1.
Lack of compliance infrastructure/formal agreement with the events company and the seriousness of public POM promotion brought discredit on the industry; breach of Clause 2.
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