AUTH/3162/2/19: Complainant v AstraZeneca — Twitter re-tweet about Heart Failure Awareness Week (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3162/2/19
Parties	Complainant v AstraZeneca
Activity/channel	Twitter re-tweet (global @AstraZeneca account)
Subject	Disease awareness: Heart Failure Awareness Week 2019; link to HFSA schedule of events
Applicable Code	2016
Complaint received	19 February 2019
Case completed	9 May 2019
Appeal	No appeal
Clauses cited	9.1, 14.3, 14.5, 16.1, 28.6
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Key reason	Re-tweet was certified as a non-promotional item prior to issue; link clearly led to HFSA webpage; no evidence of inadequate training or low standards

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 AstraZeneca re-tweeting a US-origin tweet from the global @AstraZeneca account during Heart Failure Awareness Week 2019.
The tweet promoted awareness of heart failure and linked (via a short URL) to the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) schedule of events; it also used @ mentions and hashtags.
The complainant alleged the material may not have been properly processed for the UK and would be visible to the public, and that links led to “uncontrolled” parts of Twitter and other websites.
AstraZeneca said the re-tweet was non-promotional disease awareness, referenced no medicines, and was certified in advance as a non-promotional item under its SOP by a UK-registered signatory.
The Panel noted the global HQ was UK-based, so the global account’s re-tweet had to comply with the UK Code.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
No breach of Clauses 14.3 and 14.5: the re-tweet had been certified as a non-promotional item prior to issue.
No breach of Clause 16.1: the complainant provided no evidence of inadequate training (based on the narrow allegation).
No breach of Clause 28.6: it was clear the link took readers to HFSA’s webpage.
No breach of Clause 9.1: no evidence AstraZeneca failed to maintain high standards.

🔒

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