Strides Pharma UK Ltd breached ABPI Code over ‘The Licensed Vitamin D3 of Choice’ claim for Strivit-D3 (AUTH/3278/11/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3278/11/19
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable individual
Company	Strides Pharma UK Ltd
Product	Strivit-D3 (colecalciferol)
Material	Journal advertisement in MIMS (print edition), September 2019
Main issue	Headline “StrivitD3 The Licensed Vitamin D of Choice” implied first-choice status; misleading/exaggerated
Clauses considered	7.2 and 7.10
Breach clauses	7.2, 7.10
No breach	Clause 7.2 (for the “PI can be found on the back” location wording)
No ruling	Missing in-text reference for year-round vitamin D statement (no clauses raised)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Complaint received	4 November 2019
Case completed	14 August 2020
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2019

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, non-contactable complainant challenged a journal advertisement for Strivit-D3 (colecalciferol) placed by Strides Pharma UK Ltd in the print edition of MIMS (September 2019).
The headline claim was: “StrivitD3 The Licensed Vitamin D of Choice”.
The complainant alleged the claim implied Strivit-D3 was the only licensed vitamin D3 and was a superlative (raised under Clause 7.2).
The complainant also noted a claim about year-round vitamin D for at-risk groups lacked an in-text reference/superscript (a “Data on file” reference appeared at the bottom).
The complainant noted the ad said “Prescribing information can be found on the back” but it was actually at the bottom of the page.
Strides said it did not intend to claim superiority; it meant Strivit-D3 was an additional licensed option and referenced cost-effectiveness. It said the ad had been changed for future use and the PI wording error was corrected.

⚖️

⌄

Breach: The claim “The Licensed Vitamin D of Choice” was ruled misleading and exaggerated because it implied Strivit-D3 should be used before and above all others (i.e., “first choice”).
No ruling: On the missing in-text reference for the year-round vitamin D statement, because no clauses were raised by the case preparation manager in relation to that allegation.
No breach: The “on the back” prescribing information location error was considered unlikely to mislead because the PI location was clear (no breach of Clause 7.2).

🔒

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