Aegerion promotional emails about HoFH guidance: sent without consent and disguised as education (AUTH/2744/12/14)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2744/12/14
Complainant	University professor (described as hospital doctor in listing)
Company	Aegerion Pharmaceuticals Limited
Complaint received	23 December 2014
Case completed	13 February 2015
Material	Two promotional emails (ref HoFK/UK/001) about HoFH guidance (Cuchel et al, 2014) including Lojuxta prescribing information
Product	Lojuxta (lomitapide)
Main issues	Promotional email sent without prior consent; promotional content initially presented as educational/disguised promotion; high standards
Breach clauses	9.1, 9.9, 12.1
No breach clauses	11.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2014

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

📋

⌄

A university professor complained about two emails from Aegerion Pharmaceuticals Limited received on 16 and 23 December 2014.
Email 1 subject: “New guidance for clinicians on homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia [HoFH]” linking to Cuchel et al (2014) and summarising key points.
Email 2 was the same content with “Reminder” added to the subject line; it was sent only to recipients who had not clicked the link in the first email.
Both emails included prescribing information for Lojuxta (lomitapide), indicated as an adjunct treatment in adults with HoFH.
The complainant said he had not opted in to receive such emails and did not treat HoFH; he also queried how the company knew whether he had acted on the first email.
Aegerion accepted the emails were promotional and admitted an error: the mailing house used the process for “educational” emails rather than the process for promotional emails that would have required prior consent/opt-in.
The Panel considered the emails’ initial presentation: sender address “[email protected]”, subject line suggesting guidance, and company identification/prescribing information only becoming apparent after scrolling.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 9.9 (promotional email sent without prior permission/consent).
No breach: Clause 11.1 (Panel accepted the recipient’s interest could reasonably be assumed given his cardiovascular specialty/profile).
Breach found: Clause 12.1 (promotion disguised as educational material based on initial impression and lack of clear company identification upfront).
Breach found: Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained).
Sanctions recorded: Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated.

🔒

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