Novartis retweet about haematology masterclass: no breach (AUTH/3167/2/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3167/2/19
Parties	Complainant/Director v Novartis
Issue	Use of Twitter/retweet; alleged disguised promotion; alleged promotion of POM to the public; alleged unclear sponsorship; alleged breach of undertaking
Complaint received	27 February 2019
Case completed	18 June 2019
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2016
Clauses considered	Clause 2; Clause 4.1; Clause 9.1; Clause 9.10; Clause 12.1; Clause 26.1; Clause 29
Decision	No breach of the Code
Channel/content	Novartis UK retweet of an HCP tweet about “Haematology Masterclass” with a photo of a speaker/slide
Third-party site mentioned	AMNP website hosting a scanned Novartis Haematology Academy flyer
AMNP funding disclosed by Novartis	£15,915 (May 2016) website establishment grant; £2,202 (June 2018) contribution to maintenance/hosting (half of £4,404 total) for three years
Notable Panel observation	AMNP disclosure “Developed with support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd” could have been clearer, but was not misleading on the narrow allegation

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 Novartis UK retweeting (without added comment) a clinician’s tweet praising talks at the “@NovartisUK Haematology Masterclass” and listing disease areas (MPN, AML, CAR, ITP, AA, CML) with a photo of a speaker and part of a slide.
The complainant searched online and found an Association of Myeloid Neoplasm Practitioners (AMNP) webpage hosting a Novartis “Haematology Academy” flyer; the complainant said this was the first mention that the meeting was promotional.
Allegations included: disguised promotion; promotion of a prescription-only medicine (POM) to the public via Twitter; unclear sponsorship/relationship between Novartis and AMNP (“Developed with support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd”); and that the flyer lacked prescribing information.
The complainant referenced a prior case (AUTH/3038/4/18) and suggested Novartis’ undertaking from that case should be reviewed; the undertaking aspect proceeded in the name of the Director.
Novartis said the retweet was non-product promotional, contained no product claims, and had no links; the Haematology Academy website was access-restricted to HCPs and the flyer had no active hyperlink.
Novartis disclosed it had provided AMNP two grants: £15,915 (May 2016) to establish the website and £2,202 (June 2018) as half the maintenance/hosting cost for three years (total cost £4,404 shared with another company).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
The retweet was not considered promotion of a POM to the public because it made no direct or indirect reference to a specific medicine.
The retweet was not considered disguised promotion.
The Haematology Academy flyer did not require prescribing information because it contained no direct or indirect reference to a specific medicine.
The AMNP sponsorship wording “Developed with support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd” was noted as potentially clearer, but was not ruled misleading on the narrow allegation (no breach).
No breach was found in relation to the alleged breach of undertaking from AUTH/3038/4/18.

🔒

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