AUTH/3131/12/18: Anonymous (non-contactable) v Napp — social media meeting adverts and sponsorship disclosure (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3131/12/18
Parties	Anonymous, non-contactable complainant v Napp
Issue	Use of social media to advertise meetings; alleged missing sponsorship statements; alleged reach to the public
Meetings	Planned series of nine DSN meetings in England (none had taken place at time of complaint)
Platforms	Facebook and Twitter (no Twitter evidence provided)
Product mentioned	Invokana (canagliflozin) referenced as being promoted at an exhibition stand (no allegation upheld about POM advertising to the public)
Applicable Code year	2016
Panel decision	Initially found breach of Clause 22.4 for one Facebook post (meeting at Napp’s offices); otherwise no breaches
Appeal outcome	Appeal successful; no breach of Clause 22.4; no breach overall
Complaint received	6 December 2018
Case completed	13 March 2019
Sanctions	None

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 (a “concerned health professional”) alleged that meeting advertisements on Facebook and Twitter for meetings sponsored by pharma companies (including Napp) did not include sponsorship statements.
The complainant also alleged the adverts were reaching the public and noted Napp was “hosting” one meeting.
The complainant provided what appeared to be a Facebook post for one diabetes specialist nurse (DSN) meeting; no Twitter posts were provided.
Napp said it was not sponsoring the meeting shown in the complainant’s post; it was providing “hands-off” sponsorship for other DSN meetings (venue/refreshments/printing) and had no involvement in DSNs’ social media promotion.
For a meeting at Napp’s offices, the agenda included a sponsorship declaration and noted a promotional exhibition stand outside the meeting room.
The Panel initially considered the Facebook post for the meeting at Napp’s offices did not make Napp’s sponsorship clear “at the outset” and ruled a breach of Clause 22.4; Napp appealed.
The Appeal Board reviewed the sponsorship agreement wording requiring prominent declaration in materials (including invites) and considered the circumstances (including that further details could be accessed via “Event/Invite” and that the agenda carried the declaration).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code overall (Appeal successful).
Panel’s initial breach finding for Clause 22.4 (for one Facebook post) was overturned on appeal.
No breach findings for allegations about advertising POMs to the public, certification, venue appropriateness, or other clauses cited.

📖

⌄

🔒

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