AUTH/3315/3/20: Anonymous v Novo Nordisk (LinkedIn obesity stigma posts) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3315/3/20
Parties	Anonymous v Novo Nordisk Ltd
Material	Two LinkedIn posts by employees about obesity/World Obesity Day and ending weight stigma
Product context	Saxenda (liraglutide injection) mentioned in case background as marketed by Novo Nordisk; not mentioned in the posts
Main allegations	Offensive/degrading content; unsubstantiated claims; indirect promotion of a POM to the public
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered	9.1, 9.2, 26.1, 26.2
Panel decision	No breach
Appeal	Yes, by the complainant; unsuccessful
Complaint received	5 March 2020
Case completed	17 September 2020

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 individual complained about two LinkedIn posts about obesity made by Novo Nordisk employees around World Obesity Day 2020.
The posts included pledges such as “Help stamp out weight stigma”, “Take a stand and change the way that we talk about obesity”, and “Spread the message that obesity is not a choice”, with hashtags #WorldObesityDay and #EndWeightStigma.
The complainant alleged the posts degraded/insulted people with obesity and those of “acceptable weight”, and that saying “obesity is not a choice” violated individuals’ rights to choose.
The complainant also alleged the posts were inappropriate for a pharmaceutical company and indirectly promoted Novo Nordisk’s anti-obesity medicine (Saxenda) to the public.
Novo Nordisk said the posts were to raise awareness of World Obesity Day (not organised by Novo Nordisk), did not mention any medicine, did not suggest seeking treatment, and were intended to highlight obesity as a complex condition and reduce stigma.
The complainant appealed after the Panel’s decision.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the ABPI Code was ruled by the Panel.
The Appeal Board upheld the Panel’s rulings following the complainant’s appeal.
The posts were found not likely to offend the majority of those who read them.
The posts were found not to promote a prescription-only medicine to the public and not to encourage the public to consult a health professional to obtain a prescription.

🔒

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