AUTH/2981/9/17: Member of the public v ViiV Healthcare — iPad use on a train (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2981/9/17
Complainant	Member of the public
Company	ViiV Healthcare
Product	Triumeq (dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine)
Issue	Promotional material visible on an iPad on a train (public setting)
Applicable Code year	2016
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 15.2, 26.1
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Key reasoning	No representative as defined by the Code was involved; material not directed at the public; difference between proactive public promotion vs someone reading over a shoulder
Complaint received	26 September 2017
Case completed	23 November 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

🎬 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 member of the public complained that a “representative” used an iPad on a train in a way that made Triumeq sales strategy and clinical information visible to other passengers.
The complainant worried an HIV patient could use the information to challenge their regimen with a nurse/doctor without understanding the overall treatment plan.
ViiV stated the individual was not a representative under the Code, but a third-party service supplier employee doing technical checks on iPad promotional materials.
The third-party employee said the material was open for about 10 minutes and he swiped through ~20 screens to test interactive functionality; he did not engage with other passengers.
ViiV said the train area was not overcrowded and there was an empty seat between the employee and the next passenger.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
No breach of Clause 15.2 (no representative as defined by the Code was involved).
No breach of Clause 26.1 (on balance, the circumstances did not amount to promotion of a prescription only medicine to the public).
No breach of Clause 9.1 (no failure to maintain high standards).
No breach of Clause 2 (circumstances did not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical 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