AUTH/2680/11/13: Advertising agency employee v Lilly — open-access creative media website (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2680/11/13
Parties	Advertising agency employee v Lilly
Complaint received	20 November 2013
Case completed	24 January 2014
Applicable Code year	2012
Material	Advertisement about maintenance treatment in advanced NSCLC; linked to a slidekit including UK prescribing information for Alimta (pemetrexed)
Channel	US-based creative media website (online advertising archive/community), not password protected
Main allegation	Open access meant anyone could view it; alleged public advertising risk
Clauses considered	2, 9.1 and 22.1
Panel finding	No breach of Clauses 2, 9.1 or 22.1; Code applied (conditions in Clause 24.2 met)
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 an advertisement about maintenance treatment in advanced lung cancer was posted on a creative media website that was not password protected and could be accessed by anyone in any country.
The advertisement carried the Eli Lilly & Company logo and asked: “Why put a time limit on advanced lung cancer treatment?”
The ad linked readers to a website that linked directly to the Lilly oncology website.
From that website, health professionals could download a slidekit on maintenance therapy in advanced NSCLC; the slidekit included UK prescribing information for Alimta (pemetrexed).
Lilly said the advertising agency submitted the ad for an award without Lilly’s agreement and contrary to contract terms; it then appeared on the US-based creative media website as a finalist entry.
The Panel considered the slidekit promoted Alimta, and assessed whether the open-access placement amounted to promotion to the public.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 22.1 was ruled (Alimta not promoted to the public in the particular circumstances).
No breach of Clause 9.1 was ruled (high standards maintained).
Consequently, no breach of Clause 2 was ruled.
The Panel considered the Code applied because the conditions in Clause 24.2 were met (internet material outside the UK, linked to UK prescribing information).

🔒

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