AUTH/3204/6/19: Anonymous pharmaceutical employee v GlaxoSmithKline (public website POM information) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3204/6/19
Complainant	Anonymous individual (concerned health professional employed by Otsuka, in a private capacity)
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited
Issue	Alleged promotion of POMs to the public via GSK public website; alleged misdirection to patient information after selecting “no” on a patient confirmation pop-up
Example product/page	Nucala (mepolizumab) public website page
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered	2; 9.1; 26.1; 26.2
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	7 June 2019
Case completed	27 April 2020
Appeal	No appeal

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous complainant (a concerned health professional employed by Otsuka, acting in a private capacity) alleged GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited’s public-facing website promoted prescription only medicines (POMs) to the public.
The complainant said the public site listed products with brand name, non-proprietary name and indication, allegedly encouraging the public to ask for specific medicines.
The complainant highlighted the Nucala (mepolizumab) page and alleged that clicking an “I am a patient” link triggered a pop-up; selecting “no” still led to patient information rather than returning to the public page.
GSK explained it ran two UK product sites: a promotional HCP site (GSKPro) and a non-promotional public site intended as a reference library resource, both accessible via the corporate site with an audience “overlay”.
GSK said the “No, go back” behaviour was a technical issue (user remained on the public page rather than being redirected as intended) and stated it had been corrected.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel ruled no breach of Clause 26.1 (promotion of POMs to the public) and no breach of Clause 26.2 (public information requirements).
The Panel ruled no breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards).
The Panel ruled no breach of Clause 2 (discredit to the industry).

🔒

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