Reckitt Benckiser: Pulse Daily email linked to ‘educational hub’ that promoted Gaviscon for prescription and used ‘gets to work instantly’ claim

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number

AUTH/3316/3/20 and AUTH/3330/4/20
Company	Reckitt Benckiser
Product	Gaviscon (range including Gaviscon Double Action, Gaviscon Advance, Gaviscon Infant)
Channel/material	Pulse Daily email highlighted box linking to Pulse-hosted upper GI “education hub” with a Gaviscon promotional tab
Complainant	Concerned UK health professional
Key issue	Disguised promotion via email click-through; unclear disclosure of company involvement; misleading “gets to work instantly” claim; PI signposting not prominent on landing page
Applicable Code year	2019
Complaint received	06 March 2020 and 14 April 2020
Case completed	08 September 2020
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	7.2, 9.1, 9.10, 12.1
No breach clauses	2, 4.1, 4.3, 9.1
Sanction	Undertaking received

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 a Pulse Daily email containing a highlighted box: “How confident are you evaluating whether an infant requires pharmacological therapy for their reflux symptoms? Read our case study”.
A footnote said the content hub was funded by Reckitt Benckiser (RB) but that the views were those of doctors, not RB.
The link took readers to an upper GI “education hub” on Pulse with multiple tabs, including a Gaviscon tab containing promotional content referring to prescription (NHS packs) of Gaviscon Double Action and Gaviscon Advance.
RB had approved material on the hub (including case studies) and created the Gaviscon tab.
The Panel considered the hub as a whole promoted Gaviscon for prescription and therefore had to comply with the ABPI Code.
The Gaviscon tab included the claim “Gets to work instantly” for Gaviscon Advance and Gaviscon Double Action, referenced to an in vitro study; the SPCs referred to rapid action, not instant.
RB noted a difference between certified and live material: the home page as certified did not have the Gaviscon trademark, but it appeared inadvertently on the live page in February 2020 and was removed once identified.
A second, identical complaint was submitted ~6 weeks later; the PMCPA amalgamated the cases.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 12.1 (email link disguised the promotional nature of the destination website).
Breach of Clause 9.10 (disclaimer did not make RB’s involvement/influence sufficiently clear).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards) including because the landing page did not clearly and prominently signpost where prescribing information could be found (handled under 9.1 as Clause 4.6 had not been raised).
Breach of Clause 7.2 (misleading/inaccurate “gets to work instantly” claim not supported by SPC wording).
No breach of Clause 2 (Panel said circumstances did not warrant particular censure).
No breach of Clause 4.1 (complainant did not evidence that prescribing information was out of date).
No breach of Clause 4.3 (no product named simply “Gaviscon”; NPN not technically required in the way alleged, though Panel noted it might have been helpful to list medicines and NPNs with first use of “Gaviscon”).
No ruling on the allegation about a table of claims applying to “Gaviscon in general” because the complainant did not provide specific details and the Panel could not identify the table.

🔒

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