GSK: Seretide digital banner ‘back-up’ frame treated as separate ad; breach for non-proprietary name not adjacent/legible (AUTH/3148/1/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3148/1/19
Company	GlaxoSmithKline
Product	Seretide Evohaler (fluticasone/salmeterol)
Channel	Digital edition of Pulse (dynamic digital banner)
Issue	Non-proprietary name not immediately adjacent to first brand name appearance and not readily readable on a static ‘back-up’ frame
Ad format detail	Four rotating frames; each visible for three seconds (12 seconds total)
Root cause described	Third-party agency set frame 2 as static ‘back-up’ for certain browsers without informing GSK
Authority focus	Clauses 4.3 and 9.1
Breach clauses	Clause 4.3 (2016 Code)
No breach clauses	Clause 9.1 (2016 Code)
Sanctions	Undertaking received
Complaint received	9 January 2019
Case completed	20 May 2019
Appeal	Appeal lodged then withdrawn prior to Appeal Board consideration
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth3148119-complainant-v-glaxosmithkline

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 a Seretide Evohaler (fluticasone/salmeterol) digital advertisement in Pulse, viewed on an iPad and laptop.
The complainant said the “ingredients” (non-proprietary name) were not visible/legible at the top of the ad and were not legible under the logo at the bottom.
The ad was a dynamic digital banner made up of four rotating frames (each shown for three seconds).
After the complaint, it emerged that a third-party media agency (without GSK’s knowledge) had set frame 2 as a static ‘back-up’ image shown if the dynamic content failed on certain browsers.
The Panel treated the ‘back-up’ frame as a separate advertisement for some viewers and ruled on (a) the four-frame rotating ad and (b) the frame-2-only back-up ad separately.

⚖️

⌄

No breach for the four-frame rotating advertisement: frame 1 displayed the non-proprietary name immediately adjacent to the first appearance of the brand name and it was legible.
Breach for the frame-2-only ‘back-up’ advertisement: the non-proprietary name was not immediately adjacent to the first appearance of the brand name and was not readily readable as part of the brand logo.
No breach of high standards: the Panel did not consider the circumstances amounted to a failure to maintain high standards.
GSK appealed the breach finding under Clause 4.3 but withdrew the appeal before the Appeal Board considered it.

🔒

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