Bristol-Myers Squibb: incorrect colour used for inverted black triangle on corporate ‘Current products’ webpage

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3049/6/18
Company	Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable
Material	‘Current products’ UK corporate webpage (URL: https://www.bms.com/gb/our-medicines.html); ref MLTUK1701479-04
Issue	Inverted triangle shown in dark navy (4) and dark grey (2) rather than black
Company action	Webpage removed immediately upon notification (11 June 2018)
Complaint received	8 June 2018
Case completed	15 August 2018
Applicable Code year	2016
No breach	Clause 4.10
Breach	Clause 9.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant challenged the colour of the inverted triangle symbol on Bristol-Myers Squibb’s UK ‘Current products’ webpage.
The page (ref MLTUK1701479-04) was certified as non-promotional (3 May 2018) and the corporate site went live on 15 May 2018.
The inverted triangle appeared 6 times but in dark navy (4) and dark grey (2), not black.
Bristol-Myers Squibb removed the webpage immediately when notified (11 June 2018).
Bristol-Myers Squibb accepted it was an oversight; it said the triangles appeared black on some screens during checking.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 4.10 (the complainant did not establish the webpage was promotional material).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained).
The Panel said the inverted black triangle is a well-known regulatory symbol; incorrect colour was inappropriate and might cause confusion; this was a serious matter.
The Panel noted that black triangle requirements are not limited to promotional material and referenced Clause 26.3 (patient-directed material for medicines under additional monitoring), but considered the issue under Clause 9.1 because Clause 26.3 was not raised in the case.

🔒

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