AUTH/2921/12/16: Grünenthal—Internal Palexia SR video uploaded to YouTube (promotion to the public)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2921/12/16
Company	Grünenthal Ltd
Product	Palexia SR (tapentadol prolonged release)
Issue	Internal-use video uploaded to YouTube; promotion of a prescription only medicine to the public
How identified	Notified by global headquarters colleague (Germany) on 23 November 2016
Video availability	Posted February 2016; viewed 330 times; removed same day it was identified (23 November 2016)
Complaint received	20 December 2016
Case completed	30 January 2017
Applicable Code year	2016
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1; Clause 26.1; Clause 26.2
No breach clauses	Clause 2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
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

📋

⌄

Grünenthal voluntarily admitted that a video certified for internal use only about Palexia SR (tapentadol prolonged release) was uploaded to YouTube without the company’s knowledge.
The video had been created for internal sales force engagement around the 2015 Palexia SR brand plan and was originally shared via a password-protected link on a secure site.
With Grünenthal’s consent, the agency submitted a shortened version for a marketing award (won Gold in January 2016).
Without Grünenthal’s or the agency’s knowledge, the production company director sent the shortened video to an actor, who uploaded it to YouTube (posted February 2016).
Grünenthal was alerted on 23 November 2016 and had the video removed the same day (by ~1pm). The video had been viewed 330 times.
The video included promotional-sounding statements (eg Palexia described as “a jolly good medicine” and “a darned good product”) and suggested persuading a doctor to prescribe it would be a “piece of cake”.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: Clause 26.1 (advertising a prescription only medicine to the public).
Breach ruled: Clause 26.2 (statements in a public forum encouraging the public to ask a health professional to prescribe a specific POM).
Breach ruled: Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained).
No breach: Clause 2 (Panel did not consider the matter warranted the particular censure of Clause 2).
Panel also expressed concern that Grünenthal had suggested the video would not be appropriate as a stand-alone item; the Panel reiterated that all material must be capable of standing alone for Code compliance and certification implies the signatory believes it complies with the Code.

🔒

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