Novartis voluntary admission: three Lucentis ads appeared in one journal issue (Clause 6.3)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2642/9/13
Company	Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd
Product	Lucentis (ranibizumab)
Material/channel	Ophthalmology Times Europe (September 2013 issue)
Issue	Three pages bore Lucentis advertising due to duplicated back cover created for a false cover
How it came to PMCPA	Voluntary admission treated as a complaint (Paragraph 5.6)
Applicable Code year	2012
Breach clauses	6.3
Panel notes	Journal within scope (publisher/editor based in UK); company responsible for acts/omissions of those working with its authority
Complaint received	20 September 2013
Case completed	11 October 2013
Appeal	No appeal
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

📋

⌄

Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd voluntarily admitted that the September 2013 edition of Ophthalmology Times Europe bore advertising for Lucentis (ranibizumab) on three pages.
Novartis’ global team (Novartis Pharma AG, Switzerland) had placed two single-page advertisements: one on page 11 and one on the inside back cover.
The publisher attached a false front cover for another company’s advertisement and, to create a corresponding extra back cover page, replicated the original back cover—resulting in the Lucentis back cover being printed twice.
The publisher did not inform Novartis’ global team of the false cover plan; the publisher later accepted full responsibility and confirmed the extra insertion was not paid for or requested by Novartis.
Under Paragraph 5.6 of the Constitution and Procedure, the Director treated the voluntary admission as a complaint.
The Panel first considered scope and agreed the journal was within the Code because the publisher, editor and assistant editor were based in the UK.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: Clause 6.3.
The Panel noted that, despite the publisher’s error, companies are responsible under the Code for the acts or omissions of those who work with their authority.
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