AUTH/2851/6/16: Anonymous complainant v Novo Nordisk (LinkedIn post about Tresiba) — No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2851/6/16
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable
Company	Novo Nordisk
Product	Tresiba (insulin degludec)
Allegation	Promotion/advertising of a prescription-only medicine to the public via LinkedIn
Channel	LinkedIn (LinkedIn Pulse app/news surfacing)
Applicable Code year	2016
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 26.1
Panel decision	No breach
Complaint received	16 June 2016
Case completed	18 August 2016
Appeal	No appeal
Notable remedial actions (company)	Employee changed LinkedIn privacy settings; social media policy recirculated to UK staff

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 anonymous, contactable complainant alleged Tresiba (insulin degludec) was promoted to the public via a LinkedIn posting.
The LinkedIn communication named a Novo Nordisk employee and included contact details (including a Novo Nordisk email address).
The post linked to a headline: “Tresiba® (insulin degludec) demonstrates significantly lower rates of hypoglycemia vs insulin…”.
Novo Nordisk said it had issued a UK medical media-only press release (13 June 2016) comparing hypoglycaemia rates with insulin glargine, and that the LinkedIn item appeared to be generated via the LinkedIn Pulse app (algorithmic/curated news surfacing), not posted by the employee.
Novo Nordisk stated it did not know about the LinkedIn communication until the complaint and had no intent to promote Tresiba to the public.
After becoming aware of the feature, the employee changed privacy settings to prevent being mentioned in news-related posts, and Novo Nordisk recirculated its social media policy to UK staff.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the ABPI Code of Practice (2016) was found.
The Panel did not consider Novo Nordisk had advertised a prescription-only medicine to the public.
The Panel also did not consider the circumstances indicated a failure to maintain high standards or that they brought discredit upon/reduced confidence in the industry.

🔒

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