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 in one journal issue bore Lucentis advertising due to duplicated back cover created by a false cover
How it came to PMCPA	Voluntary admission (treated as a complaint under Paragraph 5.6 of the Constitution and Procedure)
Applicable Code year	2012
Breach clause(s)	Clause 6.3
Panel notes	Publisher accepted responsibility; additional insertion not paid for or requested by Novartis; company still responsible for third parties acting 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

🎬 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

📋

⌄

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 cover and reproduced the original back cover content onto the false cover, resulting in the Lucentis back-cover advertisement appearing twice (two back covers), plus the page 11 ad (three ads total).
The publisher accepted full responsibility and confirmed the additional 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 ruled the journal was within the scope of the Code (publisher/editorial staff based in the UK; journal produced in the UK).
A breach was ruled (as acknowledged by Novartis) because three pages of the journal bore advertising for Lucentis.
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