Lilly rheumatology website: “share by email” templates breached high standards (AUTH/3112/11/18)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3112/11/18
Company	Lilly
Complaint source	Concerned UK health professional
Material	Eli Lilly rheumatology website (www.lillyrheumatology.co.uk) including “share by email” functionality and Twitter user guidelines
Products mentioned	Olumiant (baricitinib); Taltz (ixekizumab)
Complaint received	4 November 2018
Case completed	24 May 2019 (site lists completed 25 May 2019)
Applicable Code year	2016
Breach clauses	9.1
No breach clauses	4.6; 4.10; 12.1; 14.5
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

📋

⌄

A UK health professional complained about Lilly’s rheumatology website (www.lillyrheumatology.co.uk), saying it was unclear if it was promotional or an HCP resource.
The site required users to self-declare as a UK health professional before accessing HCP content.
The complainant alleged: no statement that the site was promotional; no visible link to prescribing information; issues with black triangle display for Olumiant (baricitinib) including an alleged grey triangle; and that “share by email” functions generated emails that didn’t make clear Lilly had crafted the template and that the link led to a promotional website.
The complainant also alleged Lilly’s Twitter user guidelines appeared not to have been updated since October 2016.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 9.1 (high standards) in relation to email templates generated via “share by email” functionality—recipients were not sufficiently clearly informed that Lilly had created the email template.
No breach: Clause 12.1 (disguised promotion) – the website was sufficiently clearly a Lilly promotional website to HCPs.
No breach: Clause 4.6 (prescribing information) – product pages in “Our Products” included prominent links to SPC and prescribing information.
No breach: Clause 4.10 (black triangle) – complaint not sufficiently specific and evidence did not support the alleged grey triangle.
No breach: Clause 14.5 (recertification) – complainant did not evidence that the Twitter guidelines were promotional/required recertification under the Code.
No appeal.

🔒

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