AUTH/2853/6/16: Anonymous v GlaxoSmithKline (Telegraph Online malaria vaccine corporate ad) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2853/6/16
Complainant	Anonymous
Company	GlaxoSmithKline
Issue	Alleged promotion of an unlicensed malaria vaccine to the public via Telegraph Online advertisement
Material	30-second video “How we are tackling malaria on all fronts” (Telegraph Online placement; also on YouTube and GSK corporate website)
Product referenced	Mosquirix (Plasmodium falciparum and hepatitis B vaccine) (not named in the video)
Intended use/geography	Children aged 6 weeks to 17 months in malaria-endemic Sub-Saharan Africa; not intended to be marketed in EU/UK
Clauses considered	2, 3.1, 9.1, 26.1, 26.2
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	28 June 2016
Case completed	22 August 2016
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2016

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 complainant raised concerns about a GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) advertisement on Telegraph Online (28 June 2016).
The ad was understood to be a 30-second video: “How we are tackling malaria on all fronts”, also hosted on YouTube and GSK’s corporate website.
The complainant alleged the wording (eg, “working on the world’s first malaria vaccine… if approved… available at a reduced cost/not-for-profit”) promoted an unlicensed medicine directly to patients.
The PMCPA asked GSK to consider Clauses 2, 3.1, 9.1, 26.1 and 26.2.
GSK said the content was part of a corporate reputation campaign aimed at an “informed public” audience and served via online targeting algorithms/cookies.
GSK explained the vaccine was Mosquirix (Plasmodium falciparum and hepatitis B vaccine), intended for children aged 6 weeks to 17 months in malaria-endemic Sub-Saharan Africa; it would not be marketed in the EU/UK.
The Panel noted the complainant did not provide additional requested evidence (eg, a download of the Telegraph ad placement).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel considered the video a corporate advertisement, not promotion of an unlicensed medicine and not advertising a prescription-only medicine (POM) to the public.
The Panel found the ad would not encourage the public to ask a health professional to prescribe the vaccine (given its intended use in Sub-Saharan Africa and no intention to seek a UK/EU licence).
No breach was found of high standards or bringing discredit to 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