Grünenthal: LinkedIn ‘like’ treated as promotion of Qutenza to public and HCPs (AUTH/3177/3/19)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

CaseAUTH/3177/3/19
PartiesAnonymous v Grünenthal
IssuePromotional use of LinkedIn; employee “like” disseminating a post about Qutenza (capsaicin)
PlatformLinkedIn
MedicineQutenza (capsaicin)
Key wording in post“highly effective” and “a real alternative to the current standard of care”
Applicable Code year2016
Complaint received28 March 2019
Case completed2 October 2019
PublishedMay 2020 Code of Practice Review
Breach clauses4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 9.1, 9.9, 14.1, 26.1, 26.2, 28.1
No breach clauses7.10, 16.1, 26.3
SanctionsUndertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
AppealNo appeal

Download the full case report (PDF)


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
📋

What happened

  • An anonymous complainant (a “concerned UK health professional”) challenged a Grünenthal Group LinkedIn post about acquiring global rights for Qutenza (capsaicin).
  • The post described Qutenza as “a highly effective pain product” and “a real alternative to the current standard of care”, with a “Read more” link.
  • The post was created by Grünenthal GmbH (Germany). A UK employee “liked” the post on LinkedIn.
  • The Panel considered that the employee’s “like” would, on the balance of probabilities, have been disseminated to the employee’s LinkedIn connections.
  • The employee’s network included people who were not health professionals or other relevant decision makers, meaning the “like” could disseminate promotional content to the public.
  • The disseminated content to HCPs/decision makers lacked prescribing information and other required information and had not been certified for such use.
  • The Panel also considered whether a side-effect reporting statement was required for patients taking the medicine, and whether training requirements had been met.
⚖️

Outcome

  • Breach rulings: Clauses 4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 9.1, 9.9, 14.1, 26.1, 26.2 and 28.1.
  • No breach rulings: Clauses 7.10, 16.1 and 26.3.
  • The Panel found that high standards had not been maintained (Clause 9.1).
  • Sanctions applied: Undertaking received. (Additional sanctions: Not stated.)
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free