AUTH/2679/11/13: Advertising agency employee v Bayer — Sativex ads on a creative media website (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2679/11/13
Complainant	Advertising agency employee
Company	Bayer
Product	Sativex (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol)
Issue	POM advertisements accessible on a non-password-protected US creative media website following an awards submission
Applicable Code year	2012
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 22.1 (and Clause 24.2 for scope)
PMCPA finding	No breach of Clauses 2, 9.1 or 22.1
Scope point	Code applied because the ads referenced UK cost and were placed (indirectly) by the agency engaged by Bayer, meeting Clause 24.2 conditions
Complaint received	20 November 2013
Case completed	9 January 2014
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 advertising agency employee complained that advertisements for Sativex (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol) for spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis were posted on a creative media website that was not password protected and could be accessed by anyone.
The ads appeared on a US-based creative media website after the agency submitted the UK Sativex campaign for an international awards competition and it was shortlisted/won.
The website was positioned as a professional resource for creative/media professionals; site data indicated 83% of visitors were media professionals (marketing 12%, design 19%, advertising 52%).
The advertisements referenced the UK cost of Sativex, indirectly linking to UK availability/use.
The PMCPA asked Bayer to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1 and 22.1 (Applicable Code year: 2012).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 22.1 (promotion of POMs to the public) because, in the circumstances, the material was not aimed at the general public and was directed at creative media professionals.
No breach of Clause 9.1; the Panel stated high standards had been maintained.
Consequently, no breach of Clause 2.
The Panel found the matter was within the scope of the Code due to Clause 24.2 (internet material placed outside the UK but referencing UK availability/use and placed at the instigation/with authority of a UK company/affiliate).

🔒

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