Lilly diabetes website: “patient” pathway held to promote POMs to the public (AUTH/3252/10/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3252/10/19
Company	Eli Lilly & Company Limited
Complainant	An individual who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional
Channel	Company diabetes website (lillydiabetes.co.uk)
Main issue	Alleged promotion of prescription only medicines to the public via “patient” pathway and lack of general-public section
Complaint received	7 October 2019
Case completed	7 February 2020
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	9.1, 26.1, 28.1
No breach clauses	2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
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

📋

⌄

A UK health professional complained about Lilly’s diabetes website (lillydiabetes.co.uk).
The landing page offered two choices: “I am a health professional in the UK” or “I am a patient in the UK”, with no obvious section for the general public.
Selecting the patient route led to an “About Lilly Diabetes” page that included nine Lilly diabetes products shown prominently by brand logo and non-proprietary name, with links to “learn more”, instructions for use and patient information leaflets.
Lilly said product-specific information was gated: users had to confirm they had already been prescribed the product; if not, they were redirected to Lilly’s UK corporate homepage. Links to PILs/IFUs took users to eMC.
The Panel considered the initial “About Lilly Diabetes” page itself was open access and contained brand/logos in a diabetes treatment context alongside promotional-style corporate language (eg “global leader”, “make life better”, “real solutions”).
The Panel also found it was not clear that “I am a patient in the UK” meant only patients already prescribed a specific Lilly medicine; a member of the public could reasonably select it and see content not intended for them.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 26.1 (promotion/advertising of prescription only medicines to the public).
Breach of Clause 28.1 (internet/digital: requirement to provide information for the public where promotional material is provided, with clear separation and intended audience identified).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained).
No breach of Clause 2 (Panel did not consider the circumstances warranted this particular censure).
No appeal.

🔒

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