AUTH/2717/5/14: Roche voluntary admission after MabThera journal advertising appeared on four pages (Clause 6.3)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2717/5/14
Company	Roche Products Ltd
Product	MabThera (rituximab) / MabThera subcutaneous (sc)
Material/channel	Journal advertising in the British Journal of Haematology (BJH)
Issue/date	May-II edition (19 May) (bound-in card intended for June-I)
What went wrong	Two separate double-page ads appeared in one issue (covers + bound-in card), resulting in four pages of advertising for the same product
How identified	Voluntary admission (treated as a complaint under Paragraph 5.6 of the Constitution and Procedure)
Breach clauses	Clause 6.3
Applicable Code year	2014
Panel finding	Breach of Clause 6.3 (company responsible for third parties acting on its behalf)
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	23 May 2014
Case completed	1 July 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

📋

⌄

Roche voluntarily admitted that an edition of the British Journal of Haematology (BJH) carried advertising for MabThera (rituximab) on four pages.
The May-II (19 May) BJH edition contained two separate double-page MabThera advertisements: (1) outside back cover with prescribing information on inside back cover, and (2) a double-sided bound-in card.
The bound-in card was intended for the next edition (June-I) but was inadvertently included in the May-II edition by the printing house due to human error.
Roche stated both advertisements were separately certified (Clause 14.1) and were never intended to appear together in the same issue.
Roche investigated and identified contributing factors at the printer (late arrival of the intended bound-in card, incorrect assumption by a client services representative, and lack of a second check before mass printing/distribution). Publisher checks were online and did not include bound-in items.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: the journal bearing advertising for a particular product on more than two pages was a clear breach, and Roche accepted responsibility for third parties acting on its behalf.
The Panel ruled a breach of Clause 6.3.
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