AUTH/2892/11/16: Anonymous (non-contactable) v Galen — Trustsaver website savings claims (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2892/11/16
Parties	Anonymous (non-contactable) v Galen
Material	Trustsaver website (savings claims relating to Laxido)
Main allegations	Misleading UK-wide savings figure; lack of devolved nation split; comparator selection (market leader only); retrospective vs prospective savings; alleged discredit
Key claim referenced	“Trustsaver has potentially saved the NHS over £36 million since it launched in 2010” (qualified by asterisked methodology)
Applicable Code year	2016
Clauses considered	Clause 2; Clause 7.2; Clause 7.3
Outcome	No breach
Complaint received	30 November 2016
Case completed	13 January 2017
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant (appearing to work in a CCG) complained about Galen’s Trustsaver website promoting potential NHS savings linked to Galen’s laxative Laxido (macrogol plus electrolytes).
The complainant challenged a headline claim that Trustsaver had potentially saved the NHS “over £36 million since it launched in 2010”, questioning whether UK-wide savings should be split by devolved nations (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland).
The complainant alleged the website compared savings only against the market-leading brand (described as the most expensive macrogol) rather than like-for-like comparisons across other available products (eg CosmoCol variants).
The complainant argued comparisons should be prospective (aligned to NHS budgeting cycles) rather than retrospective, and alleged the site misled GPs/CCGs and could bring the industry into disrepute.
Galen responded that the site was for “UK HCPs only”, comparisons were explicitly vs market-leading brands, savings were qualified (asterisked methodology using PCA data and a theoretical 100% switch), and a calculator allowed localised modelling.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
The Panel held it was not necessarily misleading to present a single NHS-wide savings figure (rather than split by devolved nations), particularly given the availability of a personalised calculator and the submission that UK countries shared the same pricing policies for Trustsaver products.
The Panel considered it clear the website compared against market-leading brands; omission of Laxido Natural was not misleading because it had been discontinued.
The Panel did not consider retrospective illustrative savings (vs the market-leading brand) necessarily misleading, provided the basis of selection/comparison was clear.
The Panel noted one page could and should be improved (eg “45% savings with Laxido Orange” and “make significant drug acquisition cost savings by prescribing Laxido Orange by brand” could imply broader savings than vs market-leading brands), but ruled it was not misleading in context.
No breach of Clause 2 (discredit) was found because the complainant did not show, on the balance of probabilities, that Galen brought discredit upon or 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