AUTH/3310/2/20: Ex-employee v Indivior — online trade journal interview (no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3310/2/20
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable ex-employee
Company	Indivior UK Limited
Material	Online trade journal article/interview in PME/PMLiVE (Dec 2019)
Article title	“As the opioid crisis grabs the headlines, the search for safe treatments continues”
Main allegation	Disguised promotion/pre-marketing; promotion of unlicensed medicines; accessible to public
Medicines referenced (as alleged)	Suboxone film; Sublocade; Perseris
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 26.1, 26.2
Applicable Code year	2019
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 2, 9.1, 26.1, 26.2
Complaint received	17 February 2020
Case completed	21 May 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, non-contactable ex-employee complained about an online article in Pharmaceutical Market Europe (PME)/PMLiVE (Dec 2019) titled “As the opioid crisis grabs the headlines, the search for safe treatments continues”, based on an interview with an Indivior senior executive.
The complainant alleged the piece was “veiled” as an industry article but effectively promoted unlicensed medicines and looked like pre-marketing, citing references to Suboxone film, Sublocade and Perseris.
The Authority asked Indivior to consider Clauses 2, 9.1, 26.1 and 26.2.
Indivior said the article was independently initiated and authored by a journalist, not commissioned/sponsored/paid for by Indivior, and Indivior had no editorial or distribution control.
Indivior stated PME was a trade journal aimed at pharma/biotech decision makers (not the public) and that Indivior did not distribute the article externally; it was shared internally to 26 people with an instruction not to share or post on social media.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 26.1 (advertising prescription only medicines to the public).
No breach of Clause 26.2 (information about prescription only medicines made available to the public) — Panel considered it not relevant because PME was not aimed at the public.
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards).
No breach of Clause 2 (discredit to the industry; particular censure).

🔒

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